What triggered my reflection on the phrase was that I could tell she truly was glad I had solved my problem.  This was significant becaus we so often we use the words “I’m glad” to signify some sort of acknowledgment of a fact.

Person One: I’m going to start on Project X
Person Two: I’m glad

As likely as not, Person One’s imminent occupation with Project  X produces no significant emotional change in Person Two.  Person Two probably isn’t any gladder or sadder about the world because of Person One’s newfound employment.

In thinking about this, it makes a difference who the person in question is.  The contentment of the people close to us does tend to make us happier than the satisfaction of others.   But it wouldn’t be incredibly polite, when addressing those others, to simply say “ah,” “oh,” or “I see” to them.  Thus the expression is universal.

I suppose we could also blame it on figures of speech.

Another case. It’s not uncommon to find the younger generation, especially males, taking leave of each other with the simple phrase “Peace.”  The term is actually quite refreshing.  Peace. Go now.  But chances are we forget the origin of such partings.

The term is ancient, going back to time and cultures far before ours.

The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.
- Numbers 6:24-26

and

Then Eli answered, “Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant your petition that you have made to him.”
- 1 Samuel 1:17 

The simple word “peace” contains so much within it.  The wish for success, the call for grace, and the desire for the blessing of the very Lord of the universe to rest upon the departing person.

There’s probably nothing that can be done about this lack of thought about our words and phrases.  It’s just a fact of life.  One can try to emphasize the words particularly, use emoticons, or otherwise embellish them when talking.  Yet we’ll inevitably fall into patterns of speaking.  Perhaps that’s a good thing.  One can’t think about the deep meaning of expressions all the time, after all.

But, remember, now and again, the meaning.  May you Go in Peace.

Some of my analysis may be stretching the neo-Marxist definition. Still, it was an interesting and challenging critique to write. So, without further ado, here it is.

The Ideas That Conquered the World: A Neo-Marxist Critique

In his book The Ideas That Conquered the World, Michael Mandelbaum attempts to synthesize the current liberal stream of thought about the Western world’s rise to global power. This thought is liberal in the classic sense—it promotes liberty in the public sphere—and Mandelbaum focuses specifically on the ideas of peace, democracy, and free markets. He contends that the triumph of these three ideas provides a framework for interpreting the current international order: “peace as a method of organizing international relations, democracy as the optimal form of government, and the free market as a way of structuring economic life.”¹ The book leads up to what Mandelbaum calls “the liberal theory of history” by tracing its rise from earlier international frameworks through the emergence of “warlessness” and peace in the Western world.

Though Mandelbaum succeeds in providing an excellent description of the liberal stream of thought, he fails to fully pursue a number of its ideas to their logical conclusions. In particular, his theory of liberal dominance ignores the existence of competing ideas, his idea of the core and the periphery fails to extend to economics, and he disregards the actions of non-state actors in challenging the West. Mandelbaum sets the stage for a neo-Marxist critique of the global system in these three areas, but refuses to consider it. Instead he concludes by simply stating that peace, democracy, and free markets have led to the dominance of a new world order. This paper will continue with such a neo-Marxist critique where The Ideas That Conquered the World would not.

The Antithesis of Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets

Mandelbaum is correct to place his liberal framework of international order as a new theory in international relations rather than a modification or refinement of previous frameworks. In the first section of the book, entitled “The Cold War and its Legacy,” he outlines these previous frameworks and how the liberal theory of history differs from them. His analysis begins 200 years ago with the battle between liberal ideas and traditional means of political organization, including autocracy and war. By the end of the nineteenth century the new liberal ideas had emerged triumphant. But they soon found a new enemy in what Mandelbaum refers to as the “illiberalism” of fascism and communism. This new conflict set the stage for the twentieth century. As the United States and the Soviet Union battled for dominance in the world order, they spread their political ideas across the globe. Mandelbaum is again correct to recognize that the Cold War was inherently different from previous conflicts because it was a war of examples rather than force.

Where Mandelbaum fails is in his transition from the Cold War into the new liberal theory of history. Mandelbaum believes that the triumph of liberal ideas over illiberalism has left them alone in the world without a serious rival. This dominance sets the stage for his claim that they have conquered the world. A flaw exists in this reasoning, however. Like Marx’s lack of an appropriate antithesis to his final synthesis of communism, Mandelbaum ignores the current antithesis to modern liberal ideas: fundamentalist thought in political theory.²

Mandelbaum is comfortable with asserting the lack of structure in the alliance of peace, democracy, and free markets. Indeed, this very lack of structure gives the triad its powerful influence. But it also provides a clue to the triad’s antithesis. Illiberalism did not perish with communism, as Mandelbaum asserts, but also persists today in an unstructured form. Autocracy has transformed into the influence of fundamentalist leaders and conventional global wars have become guerilla wars waged by terrorist groups. Liberal ideas have found their antithesis in fundamentalism. The next century will not be an era of increasing peace as liberal ideas rule the world. Instead, the old battle between the thesis of liberalism and the antithesis of illiberalism will continue in a new and unstructured form.

The Core-Periphery Model: Explanation or Exploitation?

In the second section of The Ideas That Conquered the World, entitled “The Invention of Peace,” Mandelbaum develops his concept of the core-periphery model of international order. For Mandelbaum, the periphery is the portion of the world in which the three liberal ideas, especially peace, do not rule. This model has significant implications for the economic and political ideas of the liberal theory of history. Unfortunately, Mandelbaum ignores these implications and focuses on the core-periphery model as simply an explanation for the current disorder of the international system.

According to Mandelbaum, the end of the Cold War led to a collapse in the core-periphery system as the core states no longer had an interest in supporting the periphery. The resulting disorder in the periphery demonstrates the superiority of the core’s liberal system and the necessity of exporting it to the periphery. While there is validity to this view, it ignores a second aspect of the core-periphery system: the exploitation of the core by the periphery.

Peace, democracy, and free markets have brought unprecedented growth to the international system, allowing many countries in the periphery to achieve economic miracles. At the same time, however, this new liberal system has enabled the core to extract capital and labor from the periphery while contributing little to the periphery’s long term development. The implementation of the Washington Consensus—privatization, liberalization, and globalization—has often come at the detriment of periphery countries. The liberal triad has revolutionized the international economy, but it has also increased the exploitation of the periphery by the core. Mandelbaum would do well to recognize this exploitation in addition to his explanation of the model.

Non-State Actors as the Oppressor and Oppressed

A final critique of Mandelbaum’s book emerges from the first two critiques: Mandelbaum’s lack of attention to non-state actors. Both fundamentalism and core-periphery exploitation involve such actors: terrorist organizations are at the forefront of global fundamentalist movements and multi-national corporations enable the exploitation of the periphery. These non-state actors represent a new manifestation of the traditional Marxist oppressor and oppressed.

Mandelbaum correctly does not view the next century as the age of terrorism. This does not mean, however, that terrorist groups will have no impact on the international system. The failure of peace and democracy to contain terrorism, especially in the periphery states, will result in turmoil across the globe. Radical fundamentalist activism is a frightening reincarnation of the uprising of the oppressed in traditional Marxism. Able to inflict extensive damage through fear, even with scarce resources, fundamentalist activists of any nationality or religion see themselves as struggling against the established and oppressive West. Recognition of the relevance of terrorists as non-state actors would contribute greatly to Mandelbaum’s argument.

Similarly, multi-national corporations play an integral role in the exploitation of the periphery. Though arguably still instruments of the home state, MNCs have established strong ties between the core and the periphery. These ties enable MNCs to act as vehicles of exploitation from the periphery to the core. Like the oppressor in traditional Marxism, MNCs are capable of both technological innovation and extreme exploitation. Understanding this dual role of the MNCs created by the liberal economic order is integral to a proper conception of the world today. Mandelbaum’s analysis would gain validity by including such a critique.

Conclusion

The Ideas That Conquered the World lays a necessary foundation for understanding the current international order. Peace, democracy, and free markets have undoubtedly contributed significantly to the rise of the West and the pull of its example upon the rest of the world. In this area, Mandelbaum’s synthesis is timely and appropriate.

Despite this successful analysis, however, Mandelbaum fails to completely engage the ideas he raises. By recognizing the neo-Marxist critique which the liberal triad sets the stage for, Mandelbaum could have extended and reinforced his argument. The ideas of peace, democracy, and free markets have changed revolutionized the world since the Cold War. Even so, they still face significant opposition in the form of fundamentalism, perpetuate an imbalance between the core and the periphery, and require the recognition of non-state actors. By addressing these areas, a neo-Marxist interpretation of The Ideas That Conquered the World succeeds where Mandelbaum could not.

1. Michael Mandelbaum, Michael, “The Ideas That Conquered the World: Peace, Democracy, and Free Markets in the Twenty-first Century,” The Open Forum, Washington, DC, 18 September 2002, 30 October 2007 <http://www.state.gov/s/p/of/proc/tr/15162.htm>.

2. Fundamentalism is here used as a strict adherence to basic concepts of belief and the forceful imposition of these concepts upon others, including but not limited to religious fundamental thought.