Whether Marxism Is an Outdated 19th Century Politico-Economic Philosophy - Case Study Example

Introduction Communism may have collapsed and socialist policies may have receded in face of the advent of global capitalism, the liberalization of economies and the globalization of free trade. Many, especially the proponents of liberalism, capitalism and globalization, have interpreted these developments as evidence for the defeat of the Marxist ideology and the triumph of the capitalist one. On the basis of this conclusion, it is assumed that Marxism, as in the thoughts and philosophy of Karl Marx, are irrelevant to the twenty-first century. This, as the paper shall argue, is untrue. Marxism, despite the collapse of communism is highly relevant to the current structure of both the capitalist labour system and international relations. The Labour Structure Despite the supposed triumph of capitalism over Marxism, the Marxist philosophy remains, not only relevant to the twenty-first century, but provides tremendous insight into the current labour system. According to Marx, the capitalist economic system is an exploitative one, which dehumanizes labour and reduces it o a commodity and labourers/humans to tools of production.1 The labourer is nothing more than an “agent of production,” dominated by the rules governing supply and demand or consumption and production.2 Certainly, Marx admits that in direct comparison to slavery, labourers are given wages but, the payment of wages does not imply that the capitalist system extends labourers their rights. Instead, it solidifies his position as a wage labourer whose status within the political economy is nothing more than that of a tool of production.3 In other words, and as interpreted by Marx, the capitalist system is fundamentally founded upon exploitation. The above stated recalls the current internationalization of labour, including the sweat-shop phenomenon to mind. The proponents of globalization have often cited the phenomenon of outsourcing as a positive attribute of the globalization of labour but, this is an erroneous representation of the reality. Outsourcing, which is motivated by the capitalist desire to reduce production costs by hiring cheap labour, is effectively based on the exploitation of labour and, just as Marx maintained, lends to the dehumanization of the workforce, reducing them to little more than faceless tools of production. Proceeding from the above stated, one can even argue that the current labour structure, as in the globalisation of labour, is, perversely, proof of the triumph of Marxism, not capitalism. Capitalism, as is evidenced in its ability to create value, its devaluation of capital and its inefficient allocation of resources is an unsustainable economic system.4 It is inefficient because it “inverts” the true value of labor on the one hand, and is not founded upon a logical economic base, as would guarantee its survival and sustainability.5 On the political level and insofar as it alienates and objectifies human beings and transforms them into tools of production whose only value lays in the produce of their labour – something that is external to them – the capitalist system does is oppressive.6 In the Communist Manifesto, Marx asserted that the increasing devaluation, oppression and dehumanisation of labour, such as what the twenty-first century is witnessing, marks the final stages of capitalism. Therefore, from a Marxist perspective, it could very well be argued that the current internationalisation of labour signifies that capitalism is moving to the final phase of the oppression and impoverishment of the majority, leading up to the time when the proletariat of the world will rise up against the globalization of capitalism and establish a true communist system. While certainly not claiming that the world is experiencing the final stages of capitalism, the argument here is that much of the developments which have occurred within the labour system, as in the expansion of the proletariat base and ever-increasing oppression and impoverishment, were predicted by Marx over a century ago. This alone indicates that his philosophy can hardly be dismissed as irrelevant to the twenty-first century. Globalisation Apart from the correlation between developments in the labour structure and the Marxist philosophy, the phenomenon of globalisation stands as evidence for the continued relevance of Marxism to the twenty-first century. In order to establish this point, it is necessary to highlight the similarities between imperialism and globalisation. At the time when imperialism first appeared, its publicly stated aims were very different from its true economic exploitative motivations. This immoral economic exploitation phenomenon, with all the cruelties that came along with it, claimed for itself very moral purposes. The popular rhetoric of the period was summarized through the concept of the “White Man’s Burden.” In brief, Britain and other imperialist countries stated that their goals in assuming control of underdeveloped countries was the civilizing and educating of these populations. The real aim, however, was never the development of the colonist countries or the education of their people but, economic exploitation, whereby imperialism “provided the security and political framework for the expansion of transnational economic activity in the nineteenth century.” 7 Currently, globalization has rephrased these same claims, whereby the global economic super powers and the financial and political institutes which they dominate, claim that their aim is the political and economic development of LDCs through political democratization and economic liberalism. In both stages, colonialism and globalization, the countries most affected and whose benefit these phenomena claimed to have emerged in response to, were never given a choice in the matter. Their participation in the colonial relation, just as their participation in the globalization relation, were forced upon them by the super powers of the age.8 In the first, their participation and subjugation was ensured through military power. In the second, it was assured through the threat of economic and political isolation from the global community; a state which most nations would not be able to survive.9 Threats to survival, therefore, determined the subjugation of the South to the North, be it in the era of colonialism or the present one of globalization. In both cases, however, the ideologies which formulated these international political economic frameworks, presented them as a solution to the third world’s economic and human underdevelopment problems with the last even claiming that it is the solution to poverty. Far from being motivating by concern for the welfare of the South or out of a moral sense of responsibility, both Marx and Lenin present imperialism as having been the natural outcome of capitalism.10 Through a review of their argument, it will be seen that despite the tendency to one-sided views of capitalism as the greatest evil, they do provide a framework for understanding globalization as another natural outcome of capitalism, or a veiled form of imperialism. In “On Imperialism in India,” Karl Marx argues that capitalism is an expansionist system. Its aims are continual growth and to achieve this unlimited growth, new markets need be created and shaped to fulfil the expansionist needs of capitalism.11 Accordingly, Britain and others first looked towards the creation of markets in countries with which it already functioned as a source of raw materials for its industries. For Britain, this was India. Cotton and silk from that country was a major source of raw material for the British textile industry. However, the manner in which trade was conducted, or the way in which India managed its cotton and silk production sectors, were insufficient for the fulfillment of Britain’s economic ambitions. Therefore, the solution presented itself as the domination of that country and the reorganization of its market, including production and trade methods, so as to maximize British interests.12 In “The Export of Capital,” Lenin takes a similar view of the economic rationale of imperialism, also arguing for the expansionist nature of capitalism.13 This expansionism necessitated the creation of larger markets. In turn, the expansion of markets demanded the elimination of political and economic boundaries between nations.14 Colonialism achieved this and in this sense, it is possible to begin to understand the Marxist claim of colonialism having developed as a response to the requirements of capitalism. “imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental attributes of capitalism in general.”15 Colonialism had to end because it was too openly exploitative, engaged in the displacing the natives of a country from their natural status of control over their nation, and in the transferring of wealth from one country to another. It was unacceptably direct in its reality despite the claims of moral and noble purposes. However, the requirements of capitalism for the creation of a global market did not end with the destruction of imperialism. Globalization, it can be argued emerged as the other answer. It was a means by which to achieve what imperialism had done but through a politically correct and legitimate manner. In brief, through the GATT and WTO, legitimacy was given to this new form of imperialism whereby LDCs signed trade agreements, agreed to eliminate their artificial barriers to trade, and participated in their own subjugation and transforming into neo-colonial countries.16 Globalization, as explained by Dimitri Germidis Et Charles-Albert Michalet, has not led to a situation of interdependence and equality as has been claimed. It has led to a situation of Southern financial dependence on the North and indebtness to Western/Northern International banks.17 Globalization has led to a situation of unfair competition, increased poverty and greater debt. Globalization has increased wealth and increased poverty and this fact is supported by figures which indicate that “richest 20 percent of the worlds population receives 83% of the worlds income, while the poorest 60% of the worlds people receive just 5.6% of the worlds income. The richest 20% of the worlds population in the industrial countries uses 70% of the worlds energy, 75% of the worlds metals, 85% of the worlds wood, and 60% of the worlds food.”18 All these factors serve to confirm that globalization has not achieved any of the promises it made to attract the support of the South to this ideology but has provided the North with more efficient mechanisms for exploitation of LDCs.19 As Nicholas V. Gianaris writes, “from that standpoint, international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, are criticized … with their support of globalization, they contribute to the widening gaps between rich and poor within nations and among nations.”20 Accordingly, globalization has not only replaced imperialism but is a much more efficient form of exploitation with established mechanisms and institutions designed to entrap LDCs through debt and increasing poverty, creating situations of such total economic dependency and increasing loss of sovereignty. 21 The implication of the above-stated is that globalisation, far from disproving the Marxist ideology, evidences its validity. The aims and motivations of globalisation, not to mention its potential outcomes can best be understood through the application of Marxist politico-economic theory. That, in itself, establish the continued relevancy of Marxist to the twenty-first century. International Relations Within the sphere of international relations, Marxism functions as an invaluable interpretive theory, allowing one deeper insight into the dynamics which characterise the relationship between nations. According to Martin Shaw, an international relations scholar, Marxist international relations argues that the international system is an unequal one ad is organized around the domination of the hegemonic power, or the state which is economically and militarily, hence, politically stronger. This state, the hegemonic power, imposes its own will on the world and exploits them economically. Even though it may claim to be acting on behalf of the international order and to the benefit of the majority, even when violating international law, it is really acting on behalf of its own capitalist interests on the one hand, and to eliminate threats to its power, on the other. In brief, and as Shaw emphasizes, the hegemonic state is that one state which defines the world order and which defines international interests and relations according to its own specific interests.22 The interesting factor to consider is that the hegemonic state does not declare itself as such and does not admit to the actual motivations behind its actions. For example, the United States does not openly declare that it is the one that dictates the world order and international law but claims that it is the one which exerts the effort and sacrifices its economic and military resources to preserve international peace and order. Actually, the United States, as the hegamon, seems to be acting under the theory of “hegemonic stability,” argued by the international relations scholar, Robert O. Keohane. Under this theory, the basic assumption is that “the maintenance of order requires continued hegemony,”23 or as Charles P. Kindleberger writes, “for the world economy to be stabilized, there has to be a stabilizer, one stabilizer.” 24 The United States acts as that stabilizer; as the hegamon who argues its actions to be based upon the best interest of international order and global stability while, in fact, its actions are exploitative and based on the preservation of its own hegemonic economic, political and military status. These interpretations of the United States’ behaviour within the international community are confirmed as facts through its current war on, and occupation of, Iraq. This war, although initially justified through various arguments that appeared to highlight the global benefits of this war, can best be understood through a Marxist perspective on international relations with the central argument being that this war had an underlying economic motive for the United States, in addition to the motive of extending and stabilizing its power within the oil and mineral rich Middle East. The United States is the haute bourgeoisie which exploits others for is own economic interests and, as one who has an almost complete monopoly over power, can act as it chooses with the only means of opposition being for the nations of the world to unite against it. As that has not happened, and is not likely to happen any time soon, the United States continues to extend its authority over various parts of the globe, ensuring that it maximizes its economic interests, or at least, secures those interests. Irrespective of whether or not communism, as a political economic system, has succeeded, the fact remains that Marxist theory, especially as articulated in the Communist Manifesto, is immediately applicable to the contemporary structure of international relations. It shed light on the dynamics within and, more importantly, it provides one with an understanding of the forces which determine the evolution and rise of global hegamon and the motives of hegemonic behaviour. Marxism is not irrelevant to the twenty-first century; indeed, it has never been more relevant as an IR theory. Conclusion While not contesting the fact that Marxism failed as a politico-economic system and is unlikely to succeed within that capacity, this does not mean that Marxism is an outdated 19th century politico-economic philosophy which has no bearing on the twenty-first century. Indeed, as Alex Callinicos writes, “Marx was one of a handful of thinkers who have fundamentally changed the way we see things.”25 He changed the way we see things because the collective body of his works made us understand the degree to which economic concerns and interests dominate over the affairs, activities and decisions of nation-states. Marx made us change the way we see things because he clarified the persistent reality of the socio-economic class struggle and explicated the exploitative aims of the capitalist system. Marx’s interpretation of history through the oppressor-oppressed, economics over politics, self-interest over the common good lens made us understand these tendencies as persistent, not ephemeral and mercurial, realities. In other words, the relevancy of Marxist thought and philosophy to the twenty-first century, whether assessed on the level of labour or international relations or the current reality of globalisation, hardly bears argument. None of the above, however, should be interpreted to imply that Marxist thought and philosophy are flawless. There is no doubt that weakness, largely emanating from his persistent tendency to interpret relations from an oppressor-oppressed perspective and to view events and phenomenon from an almost exclusively economic lens, abound. Certainly, Marx highlights economic relations above all else and rather naively projects utopia (as in a communist state) as possible. There is no doubt that he is unduly, and unjustifiably, optimistic about the eventual unification of the repressed masses/nations of the world 9proletariat) and their subsequent successful revolt against the bourgeoisie (hegamon), culminating in the formation of a politico-economic system based upon total equality. None of that, however, detracts from the fact that Marxism is highly relevant to the twenty-first century and, to a great degree, functions as an invaluable politico-economic and IR interpretive tool. It is, thus, that despite the collapse of Marxism that Marx’s thought and philosophy have retained their value. Bibliography Callinicos, A. [1983] The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx [Online] Available from: http://www.istendency.net/pdf/revideas.pdf, [13 November 2006] Danaher. K. [2001] “Seven Arguments for Reforming the World Economy.” Global Exchange. [Online] Available from: [13 November 2006] Gerimides Et Charles-Albert, D. [1984] International Banks and Financial Markets in Developing Countries. Development Center Studies, Paris.. Gianaris. N. V. [2001] Globalization: A Financial Approach, Praeger, Westport. Gilpin, R [1997] `The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations,’ in Crane, George T and, Abla Amawi, eds. The Theoretical Evolution of the International Political Economy: A Reader, Oxford university press, Oxford. Keohane, R. O. [2001] “Hegemony in the World Political Economy.” In International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, eds. : Longman, Longman. Lenin, I. [1997] “Imperialism As A Special Stage of Capitalism.” in Crane, George T and, Abla Amawi, eds. The Theoretical Evolution of the International Political Economy: A Reader, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Marx, K. [1857] Gundrisse, Chapter 1. [online] Available from; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm [13 November 2006] Marx, K. [1857] Gundrisse, Chapter 5. [online] Available from; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch10.htm#p547 [13 November 2006] Marx, K. [1857] Gundrisse, Chapter 8. [online] Available from; http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch16.htm#p831 [13 November 2006] Marx, K. [1997] “On Imperialism In India.” in Crane, George T and, Abla Amawi, eds. The Theoretical Evolution of the International Political Economy: A Reader, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pettman, R. [1996] Understanding International Political Economy With Readings for the Fatigued. Lynn Rienner, London. Shaw, M. [2000] “The State of International Relations.” Sussex University. [Online] Available from: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/hafa3/stateofIR.htm [13 November 2006] Sieber. M. J. [1982] International Borrowing By Developing Countries. Pergamon, New York. Waters, M. [1995] Globalization. Routledge, London. Read More