600 International Organization over the two centuries of its existence.Central to the economic side of the theory is the assumption that we have only two choices about the form of economic structure:liberal,based on free trade,and mercantilist,based on protection.Because the relationship between the two is mutually exclusive, only limited possibilities exist for policies that combine elements of both. Within this very restricted framework of choice,arguments connecting eco- nomic structure to the use of force have been made on two levels:domestic and international. In the period leading up to the triumph of free trade,arguments on the domestic level dominated the liberal case.Mercantilism was seen to arise from the nature of aristocratic states,and therefore the political priority of liberals was to topple the interventionist,power-seeking state structures that were the legacy of the eighteenth century.Liberals envisaged states that, because the bourgeoisie dominated national politics,would be both inherently disinclined to seek power and anxious to avoid war. The classical liberal view was,therefore,that the character of international relations was determined principally by the character of states.Liberal states would produce a harmonious system,mercantilist states a discordant one. Free trade straddled the domestic-and international-level arguments.It served on the one hand as a device for attacking the domestic bastions of the mercantilist state and on the other,as both the natural expression of the liberal state and the mechanism by which international harmony could be realized. Unfortunately,neither the minimal states nor the perfectly competitive markets envisaged by the classical liberals developed,and consequently nei- ther did the international harmony that they were supposed to generate. Instead,states moved toward nationalism and mass politics,and interven- tionist governments and highly distorted markets became everywhere the rule.s Because history did not unfold in line with liberal assumptions,the ar- guments about the relationship between domestic structure and the use of force have become confused and controversial.The image of the liberal state has been subtly usurped by mass democracies whose domestic structures are far removed from those envisaged by the early 19th-century liberals. Such states still derive some of their legitimacy from the carry-over of the classical liberal image,the principal connection between the two being the ideological primacy of individualism and democracy. But the rise of socialist and Marxist ideologies-a phenomenon associated with the absorption of the lower classes into the political life of the state- has raised all sorts of new perspectives on,and new controversies about, the impact of domestic structure on the use of force.Collectivists have 5.For a summary of this development,see E.H.Carr,Nationalism and after (1945;rpt. London:Macmillan,1968),pp.1-33.600 International Organization over the two centuries of its existence. Central to the economic side of the theory is the assumption that we have only two choices about the form of economic structure: liberal, based on free trade, and mercantilist, based on protection. Because the relationship between the two is mutually exclusive, only limited possibilities exist for policies that combine elements of both. Within this very restricted framework of choice, arguments connecting eco￾nomic structure to the use of force have been made on two levels: domestic and international. In the period leading up to the triumph of free trade, arguments on the domestic level dominated the liberal case. Mercantilism was seen to arise from the nature of aristocratic states, and therefore the political priority of liberals was to topple the interventionist, power-seeking state structures that were the legacy of the eighteenth century. Liberals envisaged states that, because the bourgeoisie dominated national politics, would be both inherently disinclined to seek power and anxious to avoid war. The classical liberal view was, therefore, that the character of international relations was determined principally by the character of states. Liberal states would produce a harmonious system, mercantilist states a discordant one. Free trade straddled the domestic- and international-level arguments. It served on the one hand as a device for attacking the domestic bastions of the mercantilist state and on the other, as both the natural expression of the liberal state and the mechanism by which international harmony could be realized. Unfortunately, neither the minimal states nor the perfectly competitive markets envisaged by the classical liberals developed, and consequently nei￾ther did the international harmony that they were supposed to generate. Instead, states moved toward nationalism and mass politics, and interven￾tionist governments and highly distorted markets became everywhere the rule.5 Because history did not unfold in line with liberal assumptions, the ar￾guments about the relationship between domestic structure and the use of force have become confused and controversial. The image of the liberal state has been subtly usurped by mass democracies whose domestic structures are far removed from those envisaged by the early 19th-century liberals. Such states still derive some of their legitimacy from the carry-over of the classical liberal image, the principal connection between the two being the ideological primacy of individualism and democracy. But the rise of socialist and Marxist ideologies-a phenomenon associated with the absorption of the lower classes into the political life of the state￾has raised all sorts of new perspectives on, and new controversies about, the impact of domestic structure on the use of force. Collectivists have 5. For a summary of this development, see E. H. Carr, Nationalism and after (1945; rpt. London: Macmillan, 1968), pp. 1-33