Yekaterina Oziashvili

It is often said that all politics is economics. The aim of this course is to show that all economics is politics. Though economists and policymakers often present their economic policy decisions and views as neutral—based solely on abstract mathematical models, guided by the laws of nature (or the “invisible hand” of the market)—they are, in fact, driven by transparent political ends and ideology. In this class, we will question the frequently proclaimed universality, neutrality, and inevitability of economic principles and policies through a close examination of liberal and neoliberal ideology and the ways in which it limits political discourse, reforms, and development. We will look at the origins of capitalism. We will examine the economic and political origins and consequences of shock therapy in Latin America and Eastern Europe, structural adjustment policies in countries suffering from economic crisis, and austerity measures imposed by the Troika on Greece and other states in the European Union. We’ll also look at socioeconomic explanations for the recent rise of populist parties and politicians and, especially, popular support for the far right. Some of the questions that we will explore include: What is the role of international economic institutions in domestic and international affairs? How do the interactions between international and domestic institutions and actors determine the production and distribution of scarce resources? And what is the relationship between capitalism and democracy and between international financial institutions and national sovereignty?

Thomas Hobbes believed that the State, or what he called the Leviathan, was the necessary result of individuals trying to escape from a state of nature, where existence was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Charles Tilly compared states to racketeers; Vladimir Lenin, following the lead of Marx and Engels, wrote that the State exists to maintain the domination and oppression of one class by another. John F. Kennedy famously proclaimed, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country,” demanding Americans’ unquestioning, altruistic loyalty to the State. And for about two centuries, communists, socialists, anarchists, and social democrats have debated whether the State must be reformed, overthrown, or abolished in the name of democracy, equality, and popular sovereignty. These different and often contradictory approaches reveal that there is no common agreement on the nature or role of the State. So, what is the State? Where did it come from? What are the sources and limits of its power? Why does it have so much control over our lives? These are the questions that we’ll ask in this class. We will pay special attention to the relationship between the development of the modern state and capitalism; the rise of the welfare state, the epitome of modern state power; and state violence. We’ll discuss alternative visions of the State’s role and responsibility and ask: Do we need the State, and can we make the State work for us?

Writing about the democratic transitions and ethnic conflicts that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Holocaust survivor and writer Elie Wiesel pessimistically declared in his 2002 novel, The Judges, that “the malevolent ghosts of hatred are resurgent with a fury and a boldness that are as astounding as they are nauseating: ethnic conflicts, religious riots, anti-Semitic incidents here, there, and everywhere. What is wrong with these morally degenerate people that they abuse their freedom so recently won?” One would be hard-pressed to find a quote that more accurately illuminates both the sense of severity associated with ethnic conflict, broadly defined, and the absolute lack of understanding of its causes. Despite an explosion in the number of electoral democracies since the late 1980s, expected to bring about peace and stability, the frequency and intensity of bloody and brutal scenes of ethnic violence seemed to belie all expectations. The proliferation of such violence over the last 30 years has thus caused many scholars and policy makers to more critically examine their assumptions about the sources and potential solutions to the problem of ethnic conflict as an international problem. Despite significant evidence to the contrary, commentators like Wiesel and many politicians still frequently attribute the sources of such strife to the existence of “morally degenerate people,” ethnic or racial diversity, or the history of animosity between various ethnic or racial communities. Looking at the problem from a more holistic perspective—which engages with the socioeconomic and political motivations underlying ethnic conflict—this course will challenge these commonly-held assumptions about the cause of ethnic violence and explore some possible solutions for preventing further conflicts or resolving existing ones. Some of the questions this course will address include: What are race and ethnicity? How and for what purposes are race and ethnicity constructed? What are the main sources behind conflicts deemed “ethnic”? What is the role of the international community in managing ethnic conflicts? What is the effect of democratization on ethnic conflict? What constitutional designs, state structures, and electoral systems are most compatible with ethnically divided societies?

War made the state, and the state made war. —Charles Tilly

This course will take a critical approach to the study of international relations. First, we will study the main theories (e.g., realism, liberalism, constructivism, and Marxism); concepts (e.g., the state, anarchy, sovereignty, balance of power, dependency, hegemony, and world order); and levels of analysis (systemic, state, organizational, and individual) in the field. Then, we will apply those various theoretical approaches and levels of analysis to current international conflicts and crises in order to better understand the many ongoing debates about war and peace, humanitarian interventions, international institutions, and the international political economy. Some of the questions that we will explore include: Why do states go to war? Why do some humanitarian interventions succeed while others fail or simply never materialize? Why are some regions and states rich while others are poor, and how do those inequalities shape international relations? How do international organizations help to reinforce or moderate existing interstate political and economic inequalities?

The first two decades of the 21st century have been decades of uprisings. Looking at images of protesters filling the streets of Paris, France, or Santiago, Chile, it’s hard to believe that, in 1989, Francis Fukuyama famously proclaimed the end of history—delivered by the final victory of liberalism over competing ideologies. He concluded: “The end of history will be a very sad time. The struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one’s life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism will be replaced by economic calculation, the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of sophisticated consumer demands. In the posthistorical period, there will be neither art nor philosophy, just the perpetual caretaking of the museum of human history.” The 1990s, indeed, seemed to confirm Fukuyama’s predictions. Liberal ideology—with its promarket, technocratic, and antidemocratic policies—left no space for politics or resistance. Margaret Thatcher’s infamous argument that “There is no alternative” became a posthistorical axiom rather than an ideological position. But in Belgrade on October 5, 2000, a state radio/television station was charged by a heavy-equipment machine, beginning a series of Colour Revolutions in Eastern Europe; and just like that, the posthistorical period of boredom was over. In this class, we will look at a series of uprisings that have taken the early 21st century by storm. We will start with the Colour Revolutions, move on to the Arab Spring and the Occupy movement, and end with more recent uprisings—including the Yellow Vests in France, independence movements in Catalonia and Hong Kong, and antiausterity protests in Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East. Some of those movements organized in opposition to corrupt and undemocratic governments or fake elections; others, in response to democratic governments’ lack of consideration for the livelihood of the working people and dominance of capital over human beings and environment. Not all of those movements were ultimately emancipatory projects, however, and their demands and tactics have been radically different. This class will look at the differences and similarities between the movements and ask: What can we learn from those uprisings, and what is next?