A: ğuġrāfiyā siyāsīya. — F: géopolitique. — G: geopolik. — R: geopolitika. — S: geopolítica. — C: diyuan zhengzhixue.
The term «geopolitics» was formalised by the Swedish constitutional lawyer Rudolf Kjellen (1864-1922) and systematically developed and raised to a doctrine of international relations by Karl Haushofer (1869-1946) during the period of Europe’s intensifying interstate rivalries after the turn of the century. It had the objective of emphasising the primary determination of the political by space. Since the 1970s, it is supposed to capture in its formally neutralised version «power struggles over territories for the purpose of political control over space» (Lacoste 1993).
Cross-nationally, the concept entails three core elements: a bio-organic notion of the state, a social-Darwinist view of inter-state relations defined as a struggle for Lebensraum [living space], and the deduction of the political from spatio-natural determinants.
1. As set out in the Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik [Journal for Geopolitics ], Haushofer’s «specifically German» theory of international politics combined (i) a backward-looking critique of the liberal, «mechanistic» conceptions of the state and society, counterposed to the volkisch «ideas of 1914» and an organicist conception of the state; (ii) an instinctive rejection of technology and industry; (iii) a corresponding revaluation of pre-industrial agriculture, mystified as «chthonic» and «organic»; (iv) a Malthusian emphasis on population growth; (v) a dualistic view of power determined by geographical position with a preference for land power over sea power, informing the programmatic policy prescriptions for the establishment of a Eurasian power bloc under German leader-ship; (vi) the rejection of international law, as institutionalised in the League of Nations, in favour of a new Großraumordnung [Grand Spatial Order]; (vii) the combination and political radicalisation of these elements in Anglophobia and anti-Semitism. In the context of the capitalist interwar crisis, German geopolitics can best be understood as the ideology of a «continental German imperialism» (Diner 1984, 2) and a theoretical riposte to Marxist theories of imperialism.
Between 1916 and 1944, the concept of geopolitics reaches its phase of greatest public influence; first during the revisionist intellectual struggles against the Versailles Treaties and, thereafter, as a key legitimation for national-socialist Großraumpolitik. The disastrous consequences of WWII led to the term’s widespread discrediting in the Federal Republic, even though the concept was not altogether taboo (Grabowsky 1960). Elements of the term were revived during the 1980s by conservative historians in the «Historians’ Controversy [Historikerstreit ]» in what Hans-Ulrich Wehler described as «middle position palaver [Mittellagen Palaver ]» (Wehler 1988, 224), seconded by Jurgen Habermas who referred to the term’s public rehabilitation as a form of «geopolitical ballyhoo [Tamtam ]» (Habermas 1987, 75). German unity, finally, led to a general discursive renaissance of the idiomatic vocabulary of geopolitics, even though the concept’s historical genealogy has been largely sanitised or suppressed (Diekmann et al. 2000).
Outside Germany and from the beginning of the Cold War onwards, German-Jewish emigres exported geopolitical categories and ways of reasoning that crystallised in the American discourse of power-political «realism». Through this transposition, geopolitical ideas with only minor conceptual re-adjustments merged in the US with an indigenous Anglo-American geopolitical tradition, most powerfully represented at the time by Isaiah Bowman, a key adviser to Wilson at the Versailles Peace Conference (Bowman 1922; Strausz-Hupe 1942). Wilson’s moralistic liberal internationalism was strongly informed by Bowman’s new geopolitical strategy of US non-territorial economic expansionism – a drive for «American global dominance» (Gowan 20M, 161). With the post-WW-II resurgence of classical realism (Morgenthau 1948) and its Cold-War-driven transformation into neo-realism (Waltz 1979) – which insists on a systemic logic of an international state of nature in which Realpolitik, security dilemma and balance of power theory prevail – the realist tradition asserts itself as a hegemonic discourse of international politics to this very day (Gray 1988; Kissinger 1994; Mearsheimer 2001). In Latin countries, the nouvelle geopolitique (Lacoste 1993) is propagated with reference to the geohistoire of the Annales School (Braudel 1994). It attributes primacy to the pre-social conditions of political life, especially to its natural-infrastructural (geographical, geological and topological) premises as manifestations of la longue duree. It led to the foundation of geopolitical journals in France (Herodote) and Italy (liMes – Rivista Italians die Geopolitics ). Since the 1980s, critical geopolitics (Ashley 1987; Walker 1993; George 1994; Agnew / Corbridge 1995; a Tuathail 1996; Agnew 1998), especially in its poststructuralist form, attempts to understand geopolitics as a discursive inside / outside phenomenon by exploring the social constructedness of spatial political orders on the basis of historicised readings of territorial transformations. Even though the intellectual links between some of these contemporary strands of geopolitical thought and the original German tradition are tenuous, invocations of the term geopolitics have become once again central to the wider discourse in academia and beyond.
2. Elements of the geopolitical tradition of thought can be traced back to the political philosophies of the physiocrats and bourgeois materialists. Political naturalism, which originates from there, can be divided into a biological-racial doctrine of human nature and a geographical-determinist doctrine (climate, soil, location, topography) in relation to non-human nature. Both are crucial for determining the regionally specific form of political socialisation. Against the background of the foundation of the German Empire (1871) after the Wars of Unification and the subsequent period of inter-imperialist rivalries, Friedrich Ratzel (1846-1911) first developed the critique of the universalistic notion of the state associated with the Enlightenment and liberalism (Faber 1982). Ratzel, a co-founder of the Alldeutscher Verband (Pan-German League), fused the organic-state conception with the social Darwinism of Ernst Haeckel (1843-1909) into «the law of spatial expansion» (Ratzel 1882, 116 et sqq.). The struggle for survival, operative in fauna and flora, transforms into a collective struggle for space and resources amongst Völker [racially / culturally defined peoples]. This struggle for space revolves around expansion and selection, rather than specialisation. The notion of a mismatch between soil fertility and population growth (Ratzel 1897, 74 et sqq.), grounded in a precapitalist agrarian worldview, justifies expansionist policies. Großraum turns into Lebensraum (Ratzel 1901) and, therefore, into the «natural» objective of any state activity. War is regarded as the natural and decisive mode of geopolitical regulation between organic collectives. States are born, grow and die in the struggle for space. Categories that mediate between the notions of soil, society and state – such as labour, classes and social interests – are largely sidelined. Consequently, differences arise in the prewar era between ethnocentric (Oscar Peschel, Robert Sieger) and geopolitical views of the goals and limits of foreign policy. While the former conception relies on political romanticism and Herder’s notion of nations as cultural-linguistic units [Volksnation ], leading to a self-limiting territorial correspondence between a nation’s area of settlement and the scale of state territory, the latter conception [Staatsnation] prioritises infinite territorial aggrandisement over ethnic-racial homogeneity (Ratzel, Alfred Kirchhoff), although it may also involve an active policy of ethnic settlement (Germanicisation). Volksnation and Staatsnation are, thus, not synonymous and constitute rival points of reference (cf. Faber 1982, 394 et sqq.). This tension between «race» and «space» re-emerges later in discrepancies between the original programme of German geopolitics and Adolf Hitler’s Rassenideologie [racial ideology] (cf. Bassin 1987).
Contemporaneously and in partial competition with these developments in prewar Germany, Alfred T. Mahan’s (1840-1914) anti-isolationist navalism and Halford Mackinder’s (1861-1947) heartland-theory form the core of a recognisable geopolitical tradition in the US and Britain. Admiral Mahan’s «aquatological» theory (1890; 1897) identifies the decisive factor in power politics in the fleet-based domination of the sea, whereas Mackinder – at the time Director of the London School of Economics – insists on the superiority of territorial power in what he describes as the «post-Columbian», i.e. post-naval, age (Mackinder 1904). Both conceptions express the factual transition from the cosmopolitan imperialism of free trade to the era of protectionist neomercantilism (Semmel 1960, 171 et sqq.). According to Mackinder’s «trizonal» world-view, a geostrategically immune inner-Eurasian heartland – the pivot of history – is enclosed by an inner crescent that stretches from the margins of Europe over the Near and Middle East on to India and China. This is, in turn, surrounded by an outer crescent, which comprises England, the Americas, Africa, Australia, Oceania and Japan. Whilst control of the world’s oceans had been the decisive factor in the power constellations of the «Columbian» age (ca. 1500-1900), the contemporary global balance of power is decisively altered by the technological penetration of the pivot area (Central Asia, Russia) by a transcontinental network of railways. The future belonged to an alliance between Germany and Russia, which remained in its territorial heartland immune against the sea powers. Only a grand coalition of sea powers against the territorial powers could prevent the otherwise certain Eurasian world domination (1904, 436). «Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland: Who rules the Heartland commands the World-island: Who commands the World-Island commands the World» (1919, 150). The horizon of this vision is «world domination».
It is doubtful, however, whether Mackinder and Mahan form part of an «Anglo-Saxon democratic» tradition of geopolitics (Sprengel 1996, 25). Both emphasise the «struggle for existence», both subscribe to the organicist view of the state. Mackinder pleads for a social-imperialist policy of race and education and demands the subordination of the demands of the people under the imperatives of what he describes as militarised imperialist trading states (1919; cf. Semmel 1960, 174 et sqq.). His dichotomous categories – land / sea, tellurian / aquatological, Leviathan / Behemoth – are later adopted by Carl Schmitt (1950).
3. As a practice-oriented theory of space, geopolitics matures from 1933 onwards into the official German science of the state [Staatswissenschaft ]. Next to Ratzel’s political geography, the German geopolitical tradition was most directly influenced by Kjellen’s anti-legalistic writings on constitutional and international law. In Der Staat als Lebensform [The State as an Organism, 1917], Kjellen contrasts the norm-oriented legal positivism, most notably represented in Weimar Germany by the Austrian-Jewish constitutional jurist Hans Kelsen (1934) and the German jurist Georg Jellinek (1922), with what he calls an empirical viewpoint» of the state. Here, geopolitics is defined as «a view of the state as geographic organism» or as a «phenomenon in space» [Erscheinung im Raume ; Kjellen, 45]. In this conception, geopolitics constitutes one, though central, component of politics in general. Driven by this vitalistic view of the state defined primarily as a power-political actor and its concomitant elevation of foreign policy to an existential condition, geopolitics turns into an auxiliary science of politics in the international struggle for survival. Laws of nature provide its basis of legitimacy. «Energetic states, whose space is limited, are compelled by the same categorical-political imperative to expand their space through colonisation, merger or conquest of various kinds» (75). During the period of transition from the nineteenth-century «Concert of Europe», the pentarchy, to the new constellation of «world politics» in the «planetary age» (Kjellen 1918a), flanked by the US and the USSR as the new super-powers, Kjellen’s thoughts on geopolitics received a wide reception in interwar Germany. The rise of the geopolitical discourse in the 1920s and early 1930s was marked by the foundation of the Geopolitische Seminar at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik (1924) in Berlin, the launch of the high-circulation Zeitschrift fur Geopolitik (1924), published by the NSDAP member Kurt Vowinckel and edited by Haushofer, Erich Obst, Hermann Lautensach and Fritz Termer (from 1925 Otto Maull), and the creation of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Geopolitik [Working Group on Geopolitics] (1932) (Sprengel 1996, 33). Haushofer, appointed professor for geography at the University of Munich (1921-39), president of the Deutsche Akademie (1934-7) and a dose confidant of Rudolf Hess, defines geopolitics as «the science of political forms of life within living space, conceived in its deep relation to soil and conditioned by history» (1928c, 54). Geopolitics was destined to become the «geographical conscience of the state» (1928a, 27). «Suggestive cartography» was hailed as a means of mass education for the collective preparation of the nation in its «struggle for survival on earth» (1929d, 346). In intellectual affinity with Ratzel, Haushofer mobilises the argument of the «increasing discrepancy between food supplies and population density» to justify demands for a «redistribution of the living and breathing space on earth according to the working capacity and cultural performance of different peoples» (1928b, 41). Any legal recognition of consolidated borders is rejected (1934). A reasonable, law-based and negotiated resolution of conflicting international interests is declared illusory.
In attacking the «liberal» system of European mini-states and the tendency to juridicise international politics and buoyed by the first foreign-policy «successes» of the Nazi regime, the geopoliticians increasingly invoke during the 1930s the «law of growing spaces», i.e. the idea of the permanent enlargement of state territory as part of the historical movement itself. But this new spatial order is no longer based on nineteenth-century nation-states as the constitutive units of the states system, but on Großraum or even «Empire» (Maull 1934; Obst 1941). In place of one universally applicable international law, Carl Schmitt (1939) advocates the pluralisation and regionalisation of diverse, co-existing and mutually exclusive legal spheres: Lebensraum, Großraum and Empire are the ordering terms that underpin his idea of a supranational hegemonic order in Central and Eastern Europe under German leadership, located between the Soviet bloc and the Western powers’ spheres of interest. In this, Schmitt repeatedly refers to the Monroe Doctrine as one example of his new planetary vision and one of the most glaring manifestations of US double standards in international law and politics between Versailles and Geneva. Schmitt’s demand for a geopolitical revision of international law can be regarded as a «legal claim for ground-rent in the international context» (Diner 1984, 23 et sqq.). Haushofer pleads with reference to MacKinder’ s heartland theory for the construction of a continental bloc, comprising Germany, the USSR and Japan (1940). This conception was instrumental for legitimising both the German-Japanese Anticomintern Pact (1936) and the German-Soviet non-aggression pact (1939). The contradiction between Haushofer’s anti-Bolshevism and his demands for a Eurasian bloc remains, of course, irresolvable. During the late 1930s, the term geopolitics becomes increasingly recharged with volkisch terns (Sandner 1994, 10) and is finally subordinated to racial policies (cf. Bassin 1987).
4. The epistemological premises of historical materialism, as articulated by Marx and Engels, stand in many ways opposed to the causal factors that the geopolitical tradition prioritises for a comprehensive understanding of the political and geopolitical as dimensions of total social reproduction. Deeply influenced by the early nineteenth-century genre of philosophies of history, space is largely eclipsed by time in their respective oeuvres. The guiding notion of historical progress, assumed to drive every single society in its internal-domestic development, is often unproblematically extrapolated to hold for world society as a whole. However, by laying the foundations for historicising and contextualising the socio-political construction of space, foreign policy and international relations, Marx and Engels stress that nature, territory and geography cannot remain pre-social constants. They are subject to transformation in their interaction with labour (Schmidt 1962). Still, the founders of historical materialism do not systematically incorporate the objective problems and phenomena high-lighted by the geopolitical tradition in their wider reflections. This relative absence of the geopolitical has left a problematic legacy within Marxism (Teschke 2005).
The young Marx and Engels are still strongly influenced by the universalism of liberal theories of history and the free-trade cosmopolitanism of classical political economy, even though they reject the idea of the pacifying effect of world trade. Marx writes to Annenkow on 28 December 1846: «What is the whole internal organisation of nations, what are their international relations, if not the expression of a given division of labour. and must they not change as the division of labour changes?» (MECW 34, 98). Rejecting the limits of traditional historiography «which neglects the real relations and confines itself to spectacular historical events» (MECW 5, 50), the determination of international relations remains ambivalent. «Bourgeois society comprises […] the total commercial and industrial life of a particular stage and transcends in this respect each state and each nation, although it is required to represent itself externally as a nation and internally as a state» (ibid). Worldwide free trade, in turn, is thought to be a precondition for the proletarian revolution on a world scale: «Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples ‹all at once› and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with them» (MECW 5, 49; modified in Engels in MECW 6, 312 et sqq., different in Marx and Engels in the Manifesto, MECW, 6, 495 passim). The problem of how states facilitate and enable circulation through their trade policies is mentioned (MECW 6, 75 passim), but not integrated into this concept of history. Similarly, Engels records the non-simultaneity of the nationally differentiated economic, social and political paths of development (MECW 6,15 passim) and hopes for a shift in the European balance of power towards the progressive Western powers as a result of the bourgeois revolution in Germany. Both historical observations remain equally inconsequential for theory (MECW 6, 64). Classically, the Manifesto reads: «The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. […] In place of the old local and national seclusion and self sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. […] The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian nations into civilisation» (MECW 6, 487 et sqq.). The non-simultaneity and relative political resistance of regionally differentiated and institutionalised class interests within the wider frame of a territorially constituted states-system remain outside the Manifesto’s theoretical perspective. Here, the notion of a «simultaneous development on the world scale» prevails (Soell 1972, 112).
Beginning with the preparatory work for Das Kapital and influenced by the failed 1848 revolution, this initial position is problematised and finally revised, demonstrated by the planning sketches for Das Kapital. However, the problem as to why political power constitutes itself territorially in the shape of a world system of politically sovereign states, whilst the world market as the sphere of private exchange assumes a universal form, is not even formulated as a research desideratum (see working plan for the 1857 Introduction ). Equally, inter-state relations fail to appear in the projects that would eventually remain unfinished: «(3) Concentration of bourgeois society in the form of the state. Viewed in relation to itself. The ‹unproductive› classes. Taxes. State debt. Public credit. The population. The colonies. Emigration. (4) The international relation of production. International division of labour. International exchange. Export and import. Rate of exchange. (5) The world market and crises» (MECW 28, 45 et sqq.). However, the recognition of the problems inherent in the mediation between international relations and universal history start to change in the mid 1850s. First, Marx’s emphasis of the diachronic and regionally specific national developments, including his greater historical sensitivity to regionally differentiated forms of class struggle, crisis and revolution, raises questions about the impact of the post-revolutionary state on the inter-state system. Second, Marx starts to inquire into the impact of conventional inter-state wars on social structure and political order. Third, he develops a greater appreciation of the role that multilateral diplomacy plays in stabilising the international order. These questions cannot, however, be answered in the dialectical and historically abstract format of Capital I. They refer to a theoretically-informed re-reading of the historical material. Marx and Engels did not, in any case, despite their growing awareness of international relations, develop an integrated theory that incorporates the historical efficacy of international relations into their conception of the overall course of world history Their interest in geopolitics remains primarily tied to the tactical consequences of alterations in world politics for communist strategy and, hence, limited to very perceptive but primarily ad hoc interventions of a journalistic or party-political character.
During the 1848 revolutions, Marx and Engels assumed the outbreak of revolutionary wars between a democratic and united Germany and late-absolutist states (Denmark, Russia, Austria). This would divide Europe into a revolutionary and a counter-revolutionary camp (MECW 7, 115, 212, 352, 421). The anticipated internationalisation of the revolution is thought to be carried out by a «world war» (MECW 7, 505; MECW 8, 215; MECW 9 148 et sqq., 197 et sqq., MECW 6, 463) between the ideals of freedom and despotism. This raises the problem of the role that England – according to Marx the «rock against which the revolutionary waves break» – is supposed to play. He confidently expects a defeat of England at the hands of a revolutionary and proletarian France (MECW 8, 214).
After the failure of 1848, Marx and Engels invert the nexus revolution-war into the nexus war-revolution during the 1850s and 1860s. Ruptures in the social and political fabric, especially in the defeated countries, are now expected after each war (MECW 12, 107, 174, 227). Still, Marx’s polemic against Palmerston’s secret diplomacy (MECW 39, 395; MECW 10, 510 et sqq.), which helped to preserve Tsarist Russia despite its defeat in the Crimean War due to British balance of power considerations, suggests that he strongly underestimated the whole sphere of diplomacy and alliance systems, i.e. the conscious and multilateral regulation of great-power relations. «We had neglected this issue [foreign policy] too much» (MECW 39, 395), Marx himself concedes. Subsequent reflections on world politics by Marx and Engels are characterised by their concern about securing the future of a united Germany. Especially Engels demonstrates strategic prescience by foreseeing Germany’s emerging dual-front problem, anticipating, in fact, the Schlieffen Plan strategy (MECW 16, 239). He suggests a «speculative separation» of the «separate field of foreign policy […] from domestic politics». This may mean that what appears to be «subjectively reactionary» can function as «objectively revolutionary in foreign policy» (letter to Marx, 31 May 1860, MECW 41, 142).
Despite the fact that the European wars between 1853 and 1870 (with the exception of the Paris Commune) did not generate the expected outcomes, theoretically much more fundamental questions arise regarding the explanation of the origins of war, how to conceive of war, and how to integrate the consequences of war as critical junctures in the wider course of history. Even though Marx is dearly aware of the broader problematique of international relations, the logic of international and national class struggles is not persuasively mediated with the logic of inter-state competition in the context of the inter-state system. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme he writes: «It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organise itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, ‹in form›. But the ‹framework of the present-day national state›, for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically ‹within the framework› of the world market, politically ‹within the framework› of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy» (MECW 6, 487 et sqq.). Engels was certainly willing to grant foreign policy transitory primacy in the context of inter-state relations. From a military-political point of view he argues: «The military strength required by a Great Power is not to be measured with a view to the greater or smaller likelihood of a coup d’etat but according to the size of the army of other great powers» (MECW 20, 61).
5. As a «national Staatswissenschaft [science of the state]» geopolitics distinguishes itself from Marxism as well as from liberal notions of the state (Denkschrift 1933). Conversely, the classical geopolitical tradition is criticised by Marxism. Karl August Wittfogel’s critique of the Kautsky disciple Georg Engelbert Graf, who charged Marx with having «neglected the primary, natural facts» (1919, 29, cf. 1924), forms the climax of this controversy. Wittfogel primarily explores the epistemological difference between geopolitics and Marxism: «Geographical factors do not directly impact on politics […]; it is only within the process of production that these ‹primary, intrinsically natural elements› (Graf) assert themselves, either as the underlying fundamental, natural conditions or as productive forces. Yet, even then, their impact is not a direct one. It is only through the specific social order as it is derived from the production process that the natural conditions influence the development of political life» (1929, 22). Heinrich Cunow (1921, 167) criticises Ratzel’s concept in a similar fashion. According to Karl Korsch, German Geopolitik represents «the expression as well as the weapon of a desperate attempt to solve the revolutionary problems of our times […] through the cataclysm of a world-wide counter-revolution» (1943, 14). For Gunter Heyden, it is «a pseudo-scientific product of the imperialist stage of capitalist development» (1958, 483).
Observing the one-sided and non-dialectical emphasis that geopolitical doctrine imparts to soil, space and power cannot obscure the neglect with which the official Marxisms of the Second and Third International treated the implications of the territorial distribution of state power. They gave preference to the category of time, which was perceived to be historically universal, over the category of space, which was socio-politically differentiated and simultaneously geographically co-determined. Here, the development of humanity was conceptualised in terms of one universal and unilinear society, abstracted from all geographical and international contexts. The intellectual tracks for this «history without geopolitics» were already laid by the founders of historical materialism themselves.
Since the 1970s, works inspired by world-systems theory and neo-Gramscianism try to re-synthesise reproductive strategies, territoriality and world politics. The former (Wallerstein 1974) focus primarily on the relation between metropolis and periphery constituted by the division of labour and reproduced by unequal circulation; the latter group (Cox 1987, 1996, Gill 1990, 1993, Rupert 1994, 2000) conceptualises the relation between labour regimes, ideology-construction and hegemonic block. A further group (Rosenberg 1994, Van Der Pijl 1998, Bromley 1999, Teschke 2003, 2005) seeks a new interpretation of the critique of political economy with the objective of developing an alternative universal-historical perspective on the socially uneven and geopolitically combined real development of the regionally differentiated course of history.
Luttwak sees the old geopolitics replaced by the dominance of «geoeconomics» in the context of globalisation – intensified global competition would lead in the long nun to a «world economic war» (1994, 46). Triadisation, the formation of regional block, is one answer by states to economic globalisation (Link 1998, 79). However, the dynamic of continental bloc formation does not prevail over the increased integration amongst Triad centres, which renders the intensification of inter-imperialist tensions unlikely (Alnasseri et al. 2001, 38). Altvater and Mahnkopf suggest that this «militaristic peace […] can surely only hold as long as shared interests prevail» (1996, 37). In this new constellation of globalisation the state becomes «predominantly a geo-economic player and only in the second place a player within the system of international politics» (66).
J. AGNEW 1998, Geopolitics. Revisioning World Politics, London-New York; J. AGNEW and S. CORBRIDGE 1995, Mastering Space. Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy, London- New York; S. ALNASSERI et al. 2001, ‘Raum, Regulation und Periodisierung des Kapitalismus’, in Argument, Vol. 42: 239, 23–42; E. ALTVATER, B. MAHNKOPF 1996, Grenzen der Globalisierung, Münster; R. ASHLEY 1987, ‘The Geopolitics of Political Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics’ in Alternatives, Vol. 12, 401–34; M. BASSIN 1987, ‘Race Contra Space. The Conflict between German Geopolitik and National Socialism’, in Political Geography Quarterly, Vol. 6:2, 115–34; I. BOWMAN 1922, The New World. Problems in Political Geography, London; F. BRAUDEL 1994, ‘Geohistoire und geographischer Determinismus’, in M. Middell, S. Sammler (eds.), Alles Gewordene hat Geschichte, Leipzig, 233–46; R. BRENNER 1989, ‘Bourgeois Revolution and Transition to Capitalism’, in A.L. Beier, D. Cannadine, J.M. Rosenheim (eds.), The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone, Cambridge, 271–304; S. BROMLEY 1999, ‘Marxism and Globalisation’, in A. Gamble, D. Marsh, T. Tant (eds.), Marxism and Social Science, London, 280–301; R. COX 1987, Production, Power, and World Order. Social Forces in the Making of History, New York; R. COX 1996, Approaches to World Order, Cambridge; H. CUNOW 1920–1, Die Marxsche Geschichts-, Gesellschafts- und Staatstheorie. Grundzüge der Marxschen Soziologie , 2 Bde. Berlin; ‘Denkschrift: Geopolitik als nationale Staatswissenschaft’, in Zeitschrift für Geopolitik , Vol. 10, 1933, 301–5; I. DIEKMANN, P. KRÜGER, J. SCHOEPS (eds.) 2000, Geopolitik . Grenzgänge im Zeitgeist , 2. Bd., Potsdam; D. DINER 1984, ‘Grundbuch des Planeten. Zur Geopolitik Karl Haushofers’, in Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte , Vol. 32: 1, 1–28; K.-G. FABER 1982, ‘Zur Vorgeschichte der Geopolitik. Staat, Nation und Lebensraum im Denken Deutscher Geographen vor 1914’, in H. Dollinger, H. Gründer, A. Hauschmidt (eds.), Weltpolitik – Europagedanke – Regionalismus . Festschrift für Heinz Gollwitzer , Münster, 389–406; J. GEORGE 1994, Discourses of Global Politics . A Critical (Re) -Introduction to International Relations, Boulder/Co.; S. GILL 1990, American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission, Cambridge; S. GILL (ed.) 1993, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge; P. GOWAN 2004, ‘American Lebensraum’, in New Left Review, Vol. 30(II), 155–64; A. GRABOWSKY 1960, Raum, Staat und Geschichte. Grundlegung der Geopolitik , Cologne-Berlin/W; G.E. GRAF 1919, Die Landkarte Europas gestern und morgen , Berlin; G.E. GRAF 1924, ‘Geographie und Materialistische Geschichtsauffassung’, in G. Jenssen (ed.), Der Lebendige Marxismus , Jena, 563–87; C. GRAY 1988, The Geopolitics of Super Power , Lexington; J. HABERMAS 1987, ‘Eine Art Schadensabwicklung. Die apologetischen Tendenzen in der deutschen Zeitgeschichtsschreibung’, in Historikerstreit . Die Dokumentation der Kontroverse um die Einzigartigkeit der nationalsozialistischen Judenvernichtung , Munich, 62–76; K. HAUSHOFER et al. 1928a, ‘Über die Historische Entwicklung des Begriffs Geopolitik’, in E. Obst et al. (eds.), Bausteine zur Geopolitik , Berlin; K. HAUSHOFER 1928b, ‘Grundlage, Wesen und Ziele der Geopolitik’, ibid., 29–48; K.HAUSHOFER 1928c, ‘Politische Erdkunde und Geopolitik’, ibid, 49–77; K. HAUSHOFER 1928d, ‘Die Suggestive Karte’, ibid, 343–8; K. HAUSHOFER 1934, ‘Atemweite, Lebensraum und Gleichberechtigung auf Erden!’, in ZfGp , Vol. 11, 1–14; K. HAUSHOFER 1979, ‘Der Kontinentalblock. Mitteleuropa-Eurasien-Japan’, in H.-A. Jacobsen (ed.), Karl Haushofer . Leben und Werk , Bd. 1, Boppard 1979, 606–34; G. HEYDEN 1958, ‘Kritik der geopolitischen Expansionstheorien des deutschen Imperialismus’, in R. Schulz (ed.), Beiträge zur Kritik der gegenwärtigen bürgerlichen Geschichtsphilosophie , Berlin/DDR, 483–543; G. JELLINEK, 1922, 3rd ed., Allgemeine Staatslehre , Berlin; H. KELSEN 1934, Reine Rechtslehre , Leipzig; H. KISSINGER 1994, Diplomacy , New York; R. KJELLEN 1924 , Der Staat als Lebensform , 4th ed., Leipzig; R. KJELLEN 1918a , Die Großmächte der Gegenwart , Leipzig-Berlin; R. KJELLEN 1918b , Die Ideen von 1914. Eine Weltgeschichtliche Perspektive , Leipzig; P. KONDYLIS 1988, Theorie des Krieges . Clausewitz – Marx – Engels – Lenin , Stuttgart; K. KORSCH 1943, ‘A Historical View of Geopolitics’, in New Essays , Vol. 6: 3, 8–17; Y. LACOSTE 1993, Dictionnaire de Géopolitique , Paris; W. LINK 1998, Die Neuordnung der Weltpolitik , Munich; E.N. LUTTWAK 1994, Weltwirtschaftskrieg , Reinbek; H.J. MACKINDER 1902, Britain and the British Seas , New York; H.J. MACKINDER 1904, ‘The Geographical Pivot of History’, in The Geographical Journal , Vol. 23: 4, 421–37; H.J. MACKINDER 1944  Democratic Ideals and Reality . A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction, New York; A.T. MAHAN 1890, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660 – 1783, Boston; A.T. MAHAN 1897, The Interest of America in Sea Power: Present and Future, Boston; O. MAULL 1934, ‘Die Erde als Lebensraum’, in K. Haushofer (ed.), Raumüberwindende Mächte, Leipzig-Berlin, 7–34; O. MAULL 1936, Das Wesen der Geopolitik, Leipzig; J. MEARSHEIMER 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York-London; H. MORGENTHAU 1985 , Politics among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace , New York; E. OBST 1941, Die Großmacht-Idee in der Vergangenheit und als tragender politischer Gedanke unserer Zeit , Breslau; G. Ó’TUATHAIL 1996, Critical Geopolitics . The Politics of Writing Global Space , London; K. VAN DER PIJL 1998, Transnational Classes and International Relations , London-New York; F. RATZEL 1882, Anthropo- Geographie oder Grundzüge der Anwendung der Erdkunde auf die Geschichte , Bd. 1, Stuttgart; F. RATZEL 1903  Politische Geographie , Munich- Leipzig; F. RATZEL 1901, ‘Der Lebensraum. Eine biogeographische Studie’, in K. Bücher et al. (eds.), Festgaben für Albert Schaffte , Tübingen; J. ROSENBERG 1994, The Empire of Civil Society . A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations, London- New York; M. RUPERT 1995, Producing Hegemony. The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Order, Cambridge; M. RUPERT 2000, Ideologies of Globalization. Contending Visions of a New World Order , London; G. SANDNER, 1994, ‘Deterministische Wurzeln und funktionaler Einsatz des ‘Geo’ in Geopolitik’ in Welttrends , Nr. 4, 8–24; A. SCHMIDT (1962), Der Begriff der Natur in der Lehre von Marx , Frankfurt/M; C. SCHMITT 1939, Völkerrechtliche Großraumordnung mit Interventionsverbot für raumfremde Mächte . Ein Beitrag zum Reichsbegriff im Völkerrecht , Berlin; C. SCHMITT 1950, Der Nomos der Erde im Völkerrecht des Ius Publicum Europaeum , Cologne; B. SEMMEL 1960, Imperialism and Social Reform . English Social-Imperial Thought 1895 – 1914, London; H. SOELL 1972, ‘Weltmarkt – Revolution – Staatenwelt. Zum Problem einer Theorie internationaler Beziehungen bei Marx und Engels’, in Archiv für Sozialgeschichte , Vol. 12: 1, 109–84; R. SPRENGEL 1995, ‘Geopolitik und Marxismus’, in Berliner Debatte INITIAL , Vol. 6:3, 11–24; R. SPRENGEL 1996, Kritik der Geopolitik . Ein Deutscher Diskurs, Berlin; R. STRAUSZ-HUPÉ 1942, Geopolitics. The Struggle for Space and Power, New York; B. TESCHKE 2003, The Myth of 1648. Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations, London- New York; B. TESCHKE 2005, ‘Bourgeois Revolution, State-Formation and the Absence of the International’, in Historical Materialism, vol. 13: 2, 3–26; R.B.J. WALKER 1993, Inside/Outside. International Relations Theory as Political Theory, Cambridge; I. WALLERSTEIN 1974, The Modern World System, I. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century, New York; K. WALTZ 1979, Theory of International Politics, Reading/Mass; H.-U. WEHLER 1988, Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit? Ein polemischer Essay zum ‘Historikerstreit’ , Munich; H.-U. WEHLER 1983, ‘Renaissance der ‘Geopolitik’?’, in ibid; Preußen ist wieder chic … Politik und Polemik in zwanzig Essays , Frankfurt/M, 60–6; K.A. WITTFOGEL 1929, ‘Geopolitik, Geographischer Materialismus und Marxismus’, in Unter dem Banner des Marxismus , Vol. 3: 1, 17–51, No. 4, 485–522, No. 5, 698–735.
Translated by Clemens Hoffmann
certainty, colonialism, composition plans, dependency theory, earth, empire, Eurocentrisim, formation theory, globalisation, international, international relations, Kautskyanism, Malthusianism, Marxism, materialism (geographical), Monroe doctrine, neo-colonialism, Occidentalism, Paris Commune, periphery/centre, population theory, politics, relations of intercourse, secret diplomacy, space, theory of social development, time, trade, universal history, war and peace, world war, world system
Aufbaupläne, Dependenztheorie, Erde, Eurozentrismus, Formationstheorie, Geheimdiplomatie, Globalisierung, Handel, Imperium, Internationale, internationale Beziehungen, Kautskyanismus, Kolonialismus, Krieg und Frieden, Malthusianismus, Marxismus, Materialismus (geographischer), Monroedoktrin, Neokolonialismus, Okzidentalismus, Pariser Kommune, Politik, Peripherie/Zentrum, Populationstheorie, Raum, Sicherheit, Theorie der gesellschaftlichen Entwicklung, Universalgeschichte, Verkehrsverhältnisse, Weltkrieg, Weltsystem, Zeit
Autor: Benno Teschke
Traducción al inglés: Clemens Hoffmann
Publicado en inglés en: Historical Materialism, volume 14:1 (327–335); © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2006.
Título del original en alemán: Geopolitik; publicado en el Historisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch des Marxismus, Tomo 5, 322-334; InkriT 2001, Argument Verlag, Hamburgo,; ISBN 3-88619-435-3.