What do you think?
Rate this book
Historical Materialism #89
Cataclysm 1914: The First World War and the Making of Modern World Politics
Cataclysm 1914 brings together a number of leftist scholars from a variety of fields to explore the many different aspects of the origins, trajectories and consequences of the First World War. The collection not only aims to examine the war itself, but seeks to visualise the conflict and all its immediate consequences (such as the Bolshevik Revolution and ascendency of US hegemony) as a defining moment--perhaps the defining moment--in 20th century world politics rupturing and reconstituting the 'modern' epoch in its many instantiations. In doing so, the collection takes up a variety of different topics of interest to both a general reader, those focused on Marxian theory and strategy, and leftist and socialist histories of the war.
Contributors Alexander Anievas, Shelley Baranowski, Neil Davidson, Geoff Eley, Sandra Halperin, Esther Leslie, Lars T. Lih, Domenico Losurdo, Wendy Matsumura, Peter D. Thomas, Adam Tooze, Alberto Toscano, and Enzo Traverso.
Contributors Alexander Anievas, Shelley Baranowski, Neil Davidson, Geoff Eley, Sandra Halperin, Esther Leslie, Lars T. Lih, Domenico Losurdo, Wendy Matsumura, Peter D. Thomas, Adam Tooze, Alberto Toscano, and Enzo Traverso.
486 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2014
1 person is currently reading
141 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 31, 2025
An excellent combination of essays on the causes of WWI productively using the concept of uneven and combined development; the concept undergirding Anievas’ intellectual contribution to reimagining Marxist historiography. As was argued in this book, up until recently, Marxist historians were broadly read and accepted as having provided an important key to understanding WW1: the age of imperialism, its relation to capitalist globalization, and its explosion into European slaughter in August 1914. Even though hotly debated, it was never really dismissed or proven wrong. Something worse happened: it was ignored by new scholars. This book has successfully refined that theory of imperialism in the broader framework of uneven and combined development, which allows for a powerful explanatory theory on the 1870-1914 period and its outburst into WW1. It should not be ignored!
You can find the most interesting contribution in the first part of the book. Chapter one and two mainly deal with the Fischer thesis on German militarism. They provide crucial theoretical background to counterpose Fischer’s counterposition between “aggressive” Germany and “peaceful” liberal world. However, they do not dismiss this opposition, as most of the empirical proof of Fischer still stands, but they try to explain why precisely Germany had become so aggressive given the conditions of capitalist globalization.
Especially chapter 3 and 4 were really interesting. Chapter 3 by Tooze, on capitalist peace or capitalist war, was unsurprisingly a masterpiece. His main criticism is pointed at contemporary economic history of the long nineteenth century that have mostly conceptualized the period as one of globalization and economic convergence, not of imperialism or mounting military tensions. His point is that WW1 cannot be seen as an anomaly and should thus be integrated into an economic history of the period. This leads him into a sharp dissection of the literature, in which he agrees that most of the “bellicose” countries such as Serbia, Germany, Russia were indeed ‘backward’ (less integrated and dominant in the world market), but that the core of the capitalist system was still drawn into the conflict because it needed to defend what it had already acquired. Britain did not want war, but along the way it got involved into strategic alliances nonetheless, because it needed to protect its empire as countries started to develop. In addition, bellicose’s war mongering was financed by that capitalist core in strategic alliances. Capitalist globalization creates unevenness, which translates into militarism. Tooze often refers to McDonald, a IR realist, who argued that the most important reason for war is a shift in power balance among the great powers. The main aggression according to Tooze came from Germany, which was actively looking for war in 1914, because it feared its horizon of military dominance was shrinking as the Russian industrial motor would soon grow, with fear of even outcompeting the American wonder. In his conclusion, Tooze reasserts the notion that a concept of “imperialism” – a dynamic amongst capitalist globalization bridging economic expansion with political militarism – is still key to understanding the 1870-1914 period, as well as WW1.
While Tooze focuses on criticizing contemporary literature, Anievas focuses on theory-building starting from UCD. His structural theory rests on three vectors: (1) the East-West vector in Europe, in which industrialization goes eastwards over time; (2) the Atlantic vector, in which the USA integrates with the European economy and makes European agriculture obsolete; and (3) the North-South vector of colonialism and empire-building. These three vectors produced unevenness on various levels, which he integrates in a very sharp dissection of class movements within German society. It is here that Anievas highlights the role of decline in the Ottoman Empire, as well as the managed decline of the Qing empire in China (in which Russia was struggling with Japan over the Manchuria region). Here too, Anievas ultimately takes Tooze’s position that Germany caused the war because of fear for Russia’s imminent rise to industrial power.
In the second part of the book I would only recommend Neil Davidson’s chapter on the end of bourgeois revolutions. Powerful observations on “bourgeois revolutions” up until 1848, after which revolutionary action was moved to other actors but the bourgeoisie under the wip of external necessity. Davidson then moves into Russian discussions over the role of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, and Trotsky’s position of permanent revolution.
You can find the most interesting contribution in the first part of the book. Chapter one and two mainly deal with the Fischer thesis on German militarism. They provide crucial theoretical background to counterpose Fischer’s counterposition between “aggressive” Germany and “peaceful” liberal world. However, they do not dismiss this opposition, as most of the empirical proof of Fischer still stands, but they try to explain why precisely Germany had become so aggressive given the conditions of capitalist globalization.
Especially chapter 3 and 4 were really interesting. Chapter 3 by Tooze, on capitalist peace or capitalist war, was unsurprisingly a masterpiece. His main criticism is pointed at contemporary economic history of the long nineteenth century that have mostly conceptualized the period as one of globalization and economic convergence, not of imperialism or mounting military tensions. His point is that WW1 cannot be seen as an anomaly and should thus be integrated into an economic history of the period. This leads him into a sharp dissection of the literature, in which he agrees that most of the “bellicose” countries such as Serbia, Germany, Russia were indeed ‘backward’ (less integrated and dominant in the world market), but that the core of the capitalist system was still drawn into the conflict because it needed to defend what it had already acquired. Britain did not want war, but along the way it got involved into strategic alliances nonetheless, because it needed to protect its empire as countries started to develop. In addition, bellicose’s war mongering was financed by that capitalist core in strategic alliances. Capitalist globalization creates unevenness, which translates into militarism. Tooze often refers to McDonald, a IR realist, who argued that the most important reason for war is a shift in power balance among the great powers. The main aggression according to Tooze came from Germany, which was actively looking for war in 1914, because it feared its horizon of military dominance was shrinking as the Russian industrial motor would soon grow, with fear of even outcompeting the American wonder. In his conclusion, Tooze reasserts the notion that a concept of “imperialism” – a dynamic amongst capitalist globalization bridging economic expansion with political militarism – is still key to understanding the 1870-1914 period, as well as WW1.
While Tooze focuses on criticizing contemporary literature, Anievas focuses on theory-building starting from UCD. His structural theory rests on three vectors: (1) the East-West vector in Europe, in which industrialization goes eastwards over time; (2) the Atlantic vector, in which the USA integrates with the European economy and makes European agriculture obsolete; and (3) the North-South vector of colonialism and empire-building. These three vectors produced unevenness on various levels, which he integrates in a very sharp dissection of class movements within German society. It is here that Anievas highlights the role of decline in the Ottoman Empire, as well as the managed decline of the Qing empire in China (in which Russia was struggling with Japan over the Manchuria region). Here too, Anievas ultimately takes Tooze’s position that Germany caused the war because of fear for Russia’s imminent rise to industrial power.
In the second part of the book I would only recommend Neil Davidson’s chapter on the end of bourgeois revolutions. Powerful observations on “bourgeois revolutions” up until 1848, after which revolutionary action was moved to other actors but the bourgeoisie under the wip of external necessity. Davidson then moves into Russian discussions over the role of the proletariat in the bourgeois revolution, and Trotsky’s position of permanent revolution.
February 11, 2023
Every one of us must eventually make a choice: what war will we become obsessed with? Some of us face this challenge more than once. When I was a boy, I was fascinated with World War Two. I watched the History Channel and imagined myself storming Omaha Beach, or parachuting into Eindhoven. I once sent a girl AOL instant messages about the Battle of the Bulge.
Now I am a man. I've turned my back on childish things. Now I'm a World War One guy. Even more than that, I'm a World War I guy with a materialist understanding of the war's origins. I should get in touch with that girl. I want to tell her that World War I wasn't an exogenous shock to 19th Century capitalist globalization. No. The war wasn't some freakish event. It emerged from the system itself.
Now I am a man. I've turned my back on childish things. Now I'm a World War One guy. Even more than that, I'm a World War I guy with a materialist understanding of the war's origins. I should get in touch with that girl. I want to tell her that World War I wasn't an exogenous shock to 19th Century capitalist globalization. No. The war wasn't some freakish event. It emerged from the system itself.
May 6, 2022
A thought provoking read.
It goes, not only into the myriad causes of the First World War but also the thinking of revolutionaries leading up to it, during & afterwards & the conflicts they had due to differing positions. Part of the book is also dedicated towards dispelling what I’ve learned are common myths about Lenin & his thinking as it relates to the Second International, his conception of Marxism & what he was imparting to the masses in his speeches & writings.
A very good starting point if you want to understand the causes of WW 1 & it’s relevance to the way the world has operated over the last 100+ years & how it relates to what we see today.
It goes, not only into the myriad causes of the First World War but also the thinking of revolutionaries leading up to it, during & afterwards & the conflicts they had due to differing positions. Part of the book is also dedicated towards dispelling what I’ve learned are common myths about Lenin & his thinking as it relates to the Second International, his conception of Marxism & what he was imparting to the masses in his speeches & writings.
A very good starting point if you want to understand the causes of WW 1 & it’s relevance to the way the world has operated over the last 100+ years & how it relates to what we see today.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews