This article examines Adam Smith’s concept of the federative: the double-facing constitutional power to conduct international relations today called the treaty or foreign-affairs power. We reconstruct Smith’s account of the federative from his major and minor works and demonstrate its importance in his account of law and empire. We first examine Smith’s early “internal federative,” where the power grows from the internal constitutional organization of the state. What starts as a democratic right to wage war and make peace becomes concentrated over time in the sovereign and its advisers as a “senatoriall” power. We then turn to the “external federative” in Smith’s later works, where the federative is redesigned as a power to unify colonial legislative bodies, connecting the familial sentiments of Britain and America, and forming a model for moving, slowly, towards the conditions Smith deemed necessary for international justice.

Montesquieu’s philosophy of moderate government offers only a qualified endorsement of commercial republics. Recent scholarship has increasingly recognized the extent to which he advocated a monarchy balanced by an aristocracy. This article explicates Montesquieu’s understanding of honor as a vital aristocratic motive and one more consistently favorable to liberty than mercantile self-interest. It then compares this argument to the constitutionalism of the American Federalists. Whereas Publius attempts to create a balance of powers on the basis of representing aggregates of individuals, Adams throughout his writings affirms Montesquieu’s assumption that the impulse for honor creates enduring hierarchies in society, which must be explicitly accounted for in constitutional design. It concludes by suggesting that, amid today’s concerns about oligarchy, inequality, and populism, Adams’s realism points toward a healthier relationship between elites and people.

This article reexamines the relationship between Jeremy Bentham and Edward Gibbon Wakefield through the lens of one of Bentham’s last projects, “Colonization Company Proposal” (1831), and his support for Wakefield’s scheme of “systematic colonization.” Their intellectual encounter explains how key Benthamite principles were integrated into Wakefield’s influential vision, with lasting effects. While famous for opposing the penal colony in New South Wales, Bentham was persuaded by Wakefield’s principles of commodifying Indigenous land as the basis for restricting landownership in order to compel labor, foster civilization, and fund emigration. Bentham’s distinctive perspective emerges from a comparison of his commentary with the body of work published by the Wakefieldians between mid-1829 and 1831. In turn, after Bentham’s death in June 1832, Wakefield drew heavily from his ideas. Bentham’s and Wakefield’s shared investment in the entwined discourses of penal reform and systematic colonization legitimized Britain’s imperial reorientation toward colonization.

The rise of the movement propagating the abolition of the slave trade in Britain was accompanied by the increasing engagement of women in the antislavery cause. These women claimed a voice on the public stage by pointing to the fact that slavery was a domestic institution. By the early nineteenth century, family separation had become one of the most popular abolitionist tropes and it gave women an important role in the later immediatist movement that emerged in opposition to gradualism. This article deals with the evolution of the abolitionist cognitive tool “mental metempsychosis,” which was made use of to argue against family separations, by looking at religiously inspired ideas notably tied to Christian Kabbalism that challenged the concept of the heritability of slavery. These ideas were initially developed by female Nonconformist ministers to repudiate the biblical story of Eve’s transgression as justification for original sin and for women’s subjugation to men.

This article presents an account of Georges Sorel’s socialist theory during the Dreyfus affair. It demonstrates that he developed a theory of the socialist movement in which socialist progress required workers’ dissociation from Parisian crowds. The affair showed Sorel that the leaders of the Parti ouvrier français (POF) were Jacobin demagogues who used militarist political organization and press rhetoric to fashion workers into Caesarist crowds. In these crowds, workers acclaimed their leaders as savior figures and blindly followed their suggestions for violence. For Sorel, POF leaders would likely direct crowds as instruments of terror in coup d’états to establish their dictatorship in the state. I contend that Sorel embraced the bourses du travail in the 1890s because their distinctive media and cultural environment constructed a different kind of proletariat. This proletariat pursued a democratic socialism of economic self-government and communicative, coalition-building street action. These institutions thus dissolved Caesarist crowds in French socialism.

In 1955, André Siegfried wondered whether the planet was entering a new geological age, wrought by industrialism and evident in major geopolitical changes. In this article, I trace his intellectual journey towards this claim and his singular focus on the international politics of agriculture and environmental change. First, I trace Siegfried’s early ideal of French rural democracy and its prudential virtues amid inter-imperial competition and interwar debt crises. Second, after the Dust Bowl, I examine Siegfried’s shifting engagements with environmental arguments against mechanized monoculture, focusing on his fears of erosion, and, after 1945, the loss of soil fertility and ecological resilience associated with small-scale mixed farming. Doubled through a geopolitical lens, I show how Siegfried saw such shifts as existential threats to his idyll of France’s rural democracy and global power. To conclude, I reflect on how Siegfried’s environmental geopolitics can help us rebuild intellectual histories of Anthropocene politics.

In the first decades of the twentieth century, the concept of “direct action” emerged as a major presence in radical politics. In the years following World War I, opponents of war and militarism reshaped that concept. They insisted upon its nonviolent character, they specified how direct action might be used to oppose war, they distinguished direct action from Bolshevism and social democracy, they imagined direct action as a key contributor to a future nonviolent revolution, and they drew upon contemporary struggles from the Ruhr, to Samoa, to India to justify their political claims. The radicals who shared these debates were linked by an energetic transnational network, spanning the War Resisters’ International and the International Antimilitarist Bureau. This article recovers this network, traces the key intellectual contributions, and argues for their significance. It aims to contribute to the intellectual histories of direct action and of nonviolence and to draw attention to previously submerged debates of the radical interwar left.

In June 2021, the last of the eighteen tomes of Tocqueville’s Oeuvres complètes was published by Gallimard. This project had been instigated more than seventy years earlier by Jacob Peter Mayer, a German Jewish writer who had fled to England in 1936. Mayer believed that Tocqueville’s insights into democracy, fanaticism, and revolution were more relevant to the nation-states of the postwar era than those of any other writer, and so he embarked upon a mission to publish Tocqueville’s complete works to underscore their contemporary relevance. Utilizing many unpublished documents, this article tells the story of how Mayer came to direct the publishing venture, how he battled with the national commission that was set up by the French government to oversee it, and how he eventually lost control of the project after thirty years as editor in chief. His experience confirmed in his eyes that free states lacked democratic cultures sufficient to sustain them.

This article examines the egalitarian ideas and practices of Gamal al-Banna (1920–2013) during Egypt’s transition from postcolonial socialism to neoliberal Islamic revival. It highlights al-Banna’s efforts to recast egalitarian ideals within both Arab socialist and Islamic frameworks. I argue that during the height of Arab socialism, al-Banna Islamized the egalitarian principles of labor to conform with and popularize salient socialist objectives. As the socialist lexicon ceded to a global trend of neoliberalism, Islam became increasingly intertwined with the formation of an identity-centric Muslim world. Within this transformed sociocultural landscape, al-Banna developed an alternative vision that integrated egalitarian ideals into a liberal Islamic discourse. Through a critical reexamination of al-Banna’s writings and activism, this article uncovers a leftist, egalitarian origin within the broader spectrum of contemporary Islamic revival. I demonstrate that the contracted global perspective—from postcolonial to Muslim worlds—led al-Banna to reconceptualize the nation’s postcoloniality and social progress through a renewed framework of liberal Islam.

This article situates the work of famous “skeptical environmentalist” Bjørn Lomborg in current environmental debates, arguing that he represents a shift from a “market” to a “planning” orientation within promethean environmental discourse taking place since the early 2000s. Instead of seeing self-correcting markets as a panacea for all societal ills, “planning” prometheanism aims to address environmental problems such as climate change through public policy, state investment, and technology development. We investigate the genesis of Lomborg’s “planning” prometheanism and locate its key sources of inspiration in the works of American economists Julian Simon, William Nordhaus, and Thomas Schelling. Moreover, we argue that Lomborg’s approach is characterized by a technocratic skepticism toward democracy which derives from his reliance on rational-choice theory. Finally, highlighting the adaptability of promethean discourse, we suggest that Lomborg’s “planning” prometheanism represents a renaissance of 1950s promethean thought at a time when a post-neoliberal world is taking shape.

The recent resurgence of exclusionary nationalism across the advanced capitalist world has caused historical scholarship on neoliberalism to reorient itself. Previous accounts of neoliberalism proved inadequate to theorize the hegemonic crisis that neoliberalism has been thrust into, prematurely rushing to declare neoliberalism dead. The task is to offer an interpretation of resurgent nationalism that can account for points of tension with hegemonic neoliberalism without underestimating the ways it lives on in the present. This essay critically reviews three books that offer distinct interpretations of neoliberalism’s enduring hegemonic crisis. If Melinda Cooper and Tehila Sasson’s respective works provide new critical perspectives on the history and present of neoliberal ideas, Jennifer Burns’s study offers an insider’s perspective on the pressures that neoliberalism is under from the nationalist right.