Liberal and Marxist Approaches to Understanding the Post Cold War Order - Essay Example

Compare and contrast Liberal and Marxist approaches to understanding the post-Cold War international order The Cold war can be considered an ideological conflict between the Liberals, with countries such as the U.S.A supporting this approach, and the Marxists, who had the U.S.S.R supporting their theory. Once it had ended, the Liberals announced a victory over Marxism whilst it seemed the Marxists would have to go back to the drawing board so to speak. Given the history between the two conflicting sides, you would be forgiven for thinking that there would be very little that they could agree on, however, in this essay I intend to highlight both where the Liberals and the Marxists agree with each other whilst also showing the fundamental disagreements between the two. There are three main topics which I cover in this essay, the first is explaining the current approaches to the post - Cold war international order, secondly I examine the role of the U.S.A in the international order, and finally, I discuss the future possibilities of the international order. I take each topic in turn, present both arguments and show the similarities and differences between Liberals and Marxists. The end of the Cold War can be analysed as a significant development in world politics and as the defeat of Marxism and triumph of Liberalism. Fukuyama is quoted as saying that this is “the end of History” and explains in his thesis, “ [the end of the Cold war is] not to an “end of ideology” or a convergence between capitalism and socialism, but to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism” (1989 pp.39). The triumphant Liberals will claim that the post-Cold war world order has the U.S.A as the single world super-power, however, they have grasped this power through consent rather than through imperialist measures like past super-powers have done, for example, Great British Empire throughout the 19th century. This has been achieved through introduction of Free-trade agreements via the WTO, and, as a result of certain policies and economic development, other important liberal factors, such as democracy and freedom, have flourished, particularly in former Soviet Union satellite states such as Poland and the Ukraine. The traditional Liberal position on the international order is a “bottom-up approach” (p121) which means that the needs of the individuals is paramount so the states orientations reflect the peoples desires and not the other way around. This in turn is reflected onto the international scene where different states want different things and hence free-trade can be quite effective in this position. From the Liberal perspective, the expansion of free-market capitalism has many advantages to it, in particular, constantly growing markets tend to preserve social peace and make the international order more secure, especially in times of prosperity (Bromley et al, 2004 p263). When countries have trade agreements with each other, this also tends to strengthen relations and peace between the countries involved since it would not be good for business or the economy if the two countries started to fight each other (Audio Programme 2A). Other advantages that free-trade agreements have is that relatively poor countries can increase their international profile if they manage to make an agreement with a country or countries who have a stronger economy (Bromley et al. 2004, pp228-232). The important feature of the current world liberal world order is that it is a stable enough environment for free trade to thrive and this stems from co-operation between the trading nations which will, hopefully, lead to a lasting peace. In contrast, the Marxist view surprisingly, given the conflict between the two ideologies, has some similar views as Liberals in their view of the international order. One similarity that seems to unite the two theories is that the international order is not in a state of anarchy as realists would have you believe, rather, it is based upon interdependence between states and these interdependencies stem from each of the the societies relation to each other. Brown et al (2009) explain this point further in Ordering the International “ Liberalism and Marxism have a similar ‘shape’ as theoretical approaches – they place relations between the state and wider society at the centre of explanations of the state preferences”(p 515). Whilst both beliefs have a corresponding view of how the international order is related to states and state-state relations, both accounts are realised in very different ways, in particular, how both attempt to comprehend the actions of a state as a extension of a society. Marxists argue that the actions of a state can be understood in terms of the position of a certain society within the international order, and also what class has most influence in that society (Brown et al, 2009 p516). Whereas Liberals would perhaps put down the actions of a state down to the certain character traits of a certain society(Brown et al, 2008. p515), thus, placing more importance on the individuals inside that state. Another topic that Liberal and Marxists disagree on is the benefits of international free trade amongst nations. Whilst some Marxists, such as Kautsky, agreed that free trade and economic interdependence would increase co-operation between nations, much like the Liberal view discussed earlier, more prominent Marxists, in particular, Lenin, debated that it is more likely that free-trade would increase competition amongst states which would eventually lead to conflict, not co-operation (audio programme 5). Modern day Marxist might also agree that Free-trade is not always a good thing in that it can lead to the privatisation of vital services which could mean job losses and lack of investment into public services (Bromley et al 2009. p164). In the next section, I will discuss the differing views the two sides have on the current world super-power, the U.S.A and their role in making the international order. During the Cold war, the U.S.A. was seen as a bulwark for Liberalism and democracy against the restrictive and Marxist U.S.S.R. Once the Cold War had ended, the U.S.A stood clearly the most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily. However, to keep this new international order, the U.S.A had to keep their economy strong, they achieved this by promoting free-trade and economic liberalisation to countries who were less economically developed. An example of this can be seen when Mexico joined the NAFTA agreement, as Bromley et al (2004) explain that Mexicos unemployment in urban areas decreased and markets were encouraged to open up underneath the system, which in turn, should make Mexico an increasingly more effective trading partner (pp 228 - 232). The stability of the international order caused by the expansion of free-trade can be seen in that we no longer have two super-powers with the threat of nuclear war hanging over our heads and that the U.S.A have remained the single super-power without any real threat to their economic supremacy. However, under George W. Bush, many Liberals believed that the U.S.A had lost some of their Liberal roots, this criticism mainly arising from the decision to invade Iraq, which goes against some Liberals belief to not fight an offensive war. Still, with the election of Barack Obama, Liberals are hopeful that the U.S.A will once more, return to its traditional Liberal origins. I will now analyse the Marxist perception of the U.S.A s role in the new international order. The Marxist interpretation is a stark contrast to the friendly and non-coercive image the Liberals have painted. In fact, the Marxist view is quite critical of the U.S.A, claiming the endorsement of free-trade and the expansion of the U.S markets, that we can see the effects in Globalisation is a type of imperialism. Despite Liberals claiming that this is through voluntary agreements by countries, such as signing up to the WTO, Marxists assert that the U.S have made it so that it is much better to be inside the organisation than outside it, independent from the trade rules and regulations, that no countries, particularly in Africa, can afford not to be part of the organisations (audio programme 2a). In this final section, I examine the future of the international order, looking at emerging countries with ever increasing power and rapidly expanding economies that may be able to challenge the U.S.A as a rival super-power both economically and militarily in the time to come. There seems to be two major threats to the U.S.A s dominance, China and Russia. China poses a threat to the U.S.A on the account of its huge population, high production rate and the largest military in the world. Russia poses a slightly lesser threat but still has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons than any other country in the world. The challenge for the U.S.A is not whether they can remain the sole super-power, that could well be a losing battle, but what is the best way to accommodate the increasing influence of the two emerging countries. Brown et al (2004 p167) discuss the options available for the U.S.A, “ [One way is...]to treat China and Russia as ‘strategic partners’ in the project of managing a universal capitalist order”, which would mean conceding some of the power enjoyed by the U.S.A and sharing it with China and Russia. Another option is “to deal with them as ‘strategic competitors’ that threaten that order”, that is to try and strengthen its own allies, like India and the European Union for example, and try to exclude China and Russia at least until they become fully liberal countries themselves. The conclusion that Brown et al reach is “ the obvious answer is to do both”, that is to share power with Russia and China whilst strengthening its own allies that may be able to counteract Russia and Chinas influence. Perhaps the U.S.A s best chance of keeping countries like China from overtaking them is to develop a sense of unity in the West, Ikenberry (2008 p8) talks about in his article, “If China intends to rise up and challenge the existing order, it has a much more daunting task than simply confronting the United States”. Ikenberry believes that China will be able to overtake the U.S.A in terms of production within the next decade or so, in which case, the U.S.A will have to give up its position of supremacy to China, unless they are able to lead the West in an attempt to counteract the threat from China, possibly through organizations such as the OECD. My final section of this essay looks at how Marxists might view the future of the international order. In Marxist belief, capitalism grows and strengthens through series of expansions and crises, this can be seen even today with the credit crunch that has just happened. There is a strand of Marxism that will state that “...the spread of capitalism may actually be a source of unevenness and division and hence of conflict internationally, so that interdependence might imply conflict rather than cooperation” (audio programme 5). Potentially, capitalism can expand even further as the markets of China and Russia become more free and open to foreign investment, meaning that their economies will be rather similar to that of the U.S.A, which will lead to increased competition and this may well lead to conflict, particularly for materials. The reasoning Marxists give behind this is that “at bottom Capitalism is a system of exploitation and inequality, not one of cooperation and mutual benefit”, this is ultimately the crucial difference between the Marxists and the Liberals. In conclusion, I believe that whilst their views on capitalism, is fundamentally different, a difference that their cannot be agreement over, it does explain why both parties can agree on some aspects of the international order, but get to these agreements through very different reasoning. In the first paragraph, I showed that the Liberals were optimistic about the future of the international order because the expansion of free-trade after the Cold war meant that co-operation between countries was increasing meaning that war between them would be highly unlikely. But the two sides agreed on the general relationship between the society and the state. The second paragraph demonstrated the disagreements on the role of the U.S.A as being ultimately good for all the countries involved. Finally, the last paragraph showed what role the U.S.A had in the future international order, and what to make of China and Russia as emerging economies, it also highlights the fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Marxists is capitalism itself. References Article John Ikenberry 2008 ‘The Rise of China and the Future of the West’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 87, no. 1. Audio Audio Programmes 2A and 5 Books Bromley S, Mackintosh, M. Brown, W. Wuyts, M 2004 Making the International, London, Pluto Books Brown, W. Bromley, S. Athreye, S 2004 Ordering the International, London, Pluto Books Fukuyama, F. 1989 The End of History and the Last Man, New York, Avon Books Read More