Marxism in General Implies Analysis of Social and Political Processes - Case Study Example

Paper on Neomarxism Whereas Marxism in general implies analysis of social and political processes through the lenses of existing production relations and the distribution of material resources in a given society, Marxist and particularly neo-Marxist approach in IR since 1970s look at how relations between the states and groups of states are conditioned by the existing global economic structures and how the relations of dependency within these structures influence the international politics. (Wallerstein, 1979: 117) Later in 1980s and 1990s Robert Cox or Fred Gale developed the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, and this new strand of literature became known as Neo-Gramscianism. This literature looks not only at the ways economic system has impact on the relations between the states, but it tried to analyze how the ideational and ideological factors help preserve and reinforce the legitimacy of the existing system through hegemony. In this paper, I would like to highlight the points of contention within Marxist approach in International Relations. First, I will outline the basic problems that are the center of the intra-paradigm debate in Marxism, from the Gramscian and Neo-Gramcian perspective. Second, I will bring the example of how the theoretical debates within Marxism contribute to differentiation in the analysis of contemporary international situation. Finally, based on the debates between Alex Callinicos and Kees van der Pijl this paper will conclude if there is an inherent contradiction between the capitalist states or, as Neo-Granscianism claims, capitalist states, driven by the social forces represented by bourgeoisie elites, will come to consensus on the common exploitation of the world-system. One of the basic concepts in Gramsci’s writings is hegemony. By hegemony, Gramsci meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality (common sense) that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations. Individual actors are not aware of the bigger picture simply because they are not capable of overcoming the routines of maintaining their living. (Boggs, 1976: 121-122) Neo-Gramscianism applies this idea to the peripheral and semi-peripheral states in the capitalist world-system. Cox, criticizing Realist approach, argues that “dominance by a powerful state may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for hegemony”. (Cox, 1981: 139) He suggests that power can be exerted through ideas and institutions not less efficiently than through material capabilities of state. The international orders of the two last centuries can not be analyzed outside of ideational hegemonies – such as pax Britannica or pax Americana – which are the tools of legitimization of the existing power hierarchies on the international arena. (Cox, 1981: 140-141) Similarly, Gale argues that the struggles on the international level are very much the reflection of the antagonistic social forces. This antagonism of social forces represents a deeper superstructure and the conflicts between states or groups of states are just mere manifestations of this superstructure. In fact, these are the social forces of the states which are the basic actors on the international level. Social forces, having antagonistic interest, instrumentally employ state and other available tools to compete more effectively. (Gale, 1998: 277) The claims made by Neo-Gramscianism raise serious questions within the Marxist paradigm. If social forces on the international level merely use the states as part of a larger struggle for material resources and ideational hegemony, then does it imply that the social forces in the core capitalist states are capable of unifying their efforts to maintain this hegemony, as some Marxist scholars argue? (Hardt and Negri, 2000: 63; Robinson, 2004: 27-33) If yes, then this perspective undermines another Marxist strand, which stems from Vladimir Lenin, who claimed that conflict between the capitalist states in inevitable. The major issue of the contention between can be best illustrated by the debate between Alex Callinicos and Kees van der Pijl. They seem to argue whether the interests of the capitalist states converge to a point when the rivalry between these states can be completely overcome. I would argue that their positions are not contradictory but, on the opposite, are complementary to each other. Callinicos suggest that the basic principles of capitalism determine the inherent conflictual nature of the states in the capitalist system. As opposed to the feudalism, capitalist forms of production provide for the opportunity for the ruling classes to increase their wealth by the creation of the surplus profit. In this way, apart from the war, production of competitive goods became an important way to maintain and increase power and wealth. However, in order for the surplus profit to be created, the goods have to be competitive on the market. Those producers that are not able to develop the more competitive goods are left with lesser or no profit. The constant drive for the competitiveness creates the vicious circle in which some capitalist are winners and some are losers. The less competitive capitalists would push the state for the mercantilist and protectionist polices in order to prevent the competition from the stronger producers in foreign countries. Once, however, the capital manages to satisfy the demands of the local market, it will tend to continue its quest for profit by exporting to other states where the local capital is less compatible and did not manage to satisfy the local demand. (Callinicos, 2007: 534-540) The export of the goods abroad and the further relocation of manufacturing into the less developed countries is a logical continuation of what was described in the political economy literature as the Vernon’s cycle. (Kurth, 1979: 3) Similar conclusion were made much earlier by Vladimir Lenin in his 1916 work “Imperialism as the highest state of capitalism”.(Lenin, 1916) In his view, the uneven development of capitalism is conditioned by its competitive nature. While the local bourgeoisie classes organize around the state apparatus, and ally with the state leadership for the pursuit of their own interests, the competition between the capitalist imperialist states is not plausible. The fight for the spheres of influences, new markets, and new allies in the less developed part of the world would always be persistent within the capitalist camp, and the outcome of this fight would be dependent on the relative strength of the relevant states. Callinicos refers to the Lenin’s argument to support the idea of the inherent contradiction of interests within the capitalist camp. (Callinicos, 2007: 534) Along with Lenin, Callinicos is particularly opposed to the Kautsky’s theory of the ultra-imperialism which claimed that the capitalists of the world might unite in order to exploit the nature peacefully. In Lenin’s view this position is itself a widespread illusion that is very conveniently used by the dominant classes. The promise of the advent of the ultra-imperialism was supposed to pacify the working class in the “West” by suggesting that violent conflicts between the leading powers are not threatening the citizenry anymore. As Lenin argues, alliances between the leading powers are possible, but they proved to be only temporary tactic alliances that could not be sustained in a long term: “For under capitalism it is unthinkable to base the division of the sphere of influence, interests, colonies, etc apart from reliance on the economic, financial and military strength of the participants”. (Lenin, 1916: 119) Therefore, the peaceful division of interests might occur only as a temporal phenomenon in the conditions of relative balance of power or some sort of consensus between the states that is a result of this balance. Criticism of the Callicos’ and Lenin-Bukharin’s theory is suggested by Kees van der Pijl who refers to the original work of Karl Marx in order to see whether there is an inherited intra-imperialism antagonism in the logic of Marxian historical-materialist method. According to Marx, the exploitation of nature has contributed to the humans understanding themselves as separate from it. Capitalism became the phase when the exploitation of nature reached its peak due to the alienation of human labor through the introduction of capitalist forms of production. Humans thus became disconnected from both nature and their own labor through which they exploit the nature. Similar logic applied to the state system: “… the same array of productive forces allows a community to engage in the transformation of nature through a labor processes (…) and to engage in foreign relations”. (Pijl, 2007: 622) Under capitalism, the alienation between the human communities became formalized and took the form of the nation-states which are differentiated spatially, ethnically, legally, etc. However, this spatial alienation “will tend to push towards a breaking point where it must be overcome”, while “the real economy tends toward a single, world embracing labor process” (Pijl, 2007: 624). Pijl brings the example of the Internet as the principal change in the productive forces. World Wide Web is not only difficult to be hijacked for the commercial purposes but it also drastically increases the possibilities for the expression of solidarity between the working class of the world. According to Marx, the change in the productive forces would not have an immediate impact on the existing property relations. The conflict between the two is resolved through the social revolution in which the new property relations are established. In the Pijl’s argument, he makes a hint that the new type of the property relations is exactly what Marx has called communism or the common ownership of the means of production. But the point here is, however, not what kind of change will the destruction of capitalism bring in, but rather what kind of reaction do those committed to the preservation of the existing order manifest. Thus, with the development of technologies and trans-border communications, antagonism between classes is crossing the national borders and polarizes entire world, forcing capitalists to unite against those interested in destruction of capitalism. Some of the scholars within neo-Marxist perceptive suggest a third way by pointing to a source of disagreement. The problem, as they say, stems from tendency to equate capitalism with the West. It is true and obvious that contemporary liberal capitalist states managed to co-exist in the relative peace under the “informal empire” of the United States. Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin thus make an important point by emphasizing that the contemporary intra-imperialist peace is made possible due to the enormous power the United States acquired as a result of serious destruction of other capitalist states during the Second World War. (Panitch and Gindin 2003, 2004, 2005). The United States constructed a system of mutual agreements that reinforced its leading position. The question here is whether the liberal peace can really be maintained in the long halt. The institutions created by the hegemonic power provided for the mitigation of the uneven development between the Western states, for instance, by the common exploitation of the natural resources of the “Third World”. The economic system constructed after the Second World War under the leadership of the US was specifically meant to accommodate the Western European capitals. With the course of the time, some Asian states closely linked to the United States were also incorporated into the system. (Pijl, 2007: 626) The possibility of the inter-imperialist alliance was not rejected completely by Lenin. Two things, however, suggest that this alliance between the capitalists is of a temporary nature, as Lenin claimed. First, the peace in the capitalist camp might be interrupted by some major cataclysms, such as the collapse of the financial system or the depletion of the natural resources. Once the wealth of particular national business elite is challenged, we might see the intensification of the struggle. Second, there are capitalist states outside of the liberal West. For example, the geopolitical struggle between the Russian and the Western corporations in the Central Asian oil-rich states. Obviously, the “new” capitalist states such as China, India, to a lesser degree Russia, Brazil and many others can not fully fit into the existing capitalist system without damaging the interests of the capitalist classes of the Western states. Thus we see that in the contemporary debates, neo-Marxists are divided on the nature of the capitalist international system. While those adhering to Lenin’s position argue that capitalist states continue to exist in antagonistic relationship, neo-Gramscianist perspective would be more in favor of seeing a world-system demisted by core capitalist states which are united by the social forces on the global scale. This debate within one particular theory (in this case, Marxism) demonstrates that analysis of the real-world issues can not be pursued without prior theoretical deliberations, and simultaneously theoretical debates can not be sustained without reference to real world. As some of the scholars in Marxist tradition suggested, neo-Marxist ideas, namely those of Gramsci or Wallerstein, are confining capitalist states to those in the West. However, this theoretical perspective might be outdated since in contemporary world, majority of the states be characterized as market or state capitalist (the case of the latter one is China). Marxist IR theory thus can be best used in practice when all the perspectives within the theory are taken into consideration, and those theoretical perspectives, which do not fit the reality anymore, are either updated or rejected. In this particular case, we can see that conflict between the state can be driven by economic considerations or by the interest of the economic elites, however, as opposed to earlier Marxist writers, contemporary ones start to recognize that not only the Western states’ foreign policy is driven by such forces but that this perspective can be applied to many other, non-Western states, which have significant capitalist class. Bibliography: Boggs, C. (1976) Gramsci’s Marxism. London: Pluto Press, p. 39; Antonio Gramsci (1975) Prison Notebooks, p. 90-91, 121-122. Callinicos, Alex. (2007) ‘Does capitalism need the state system?’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2007. Cox, Robert W. (1981) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies vol. 10, No. 2, 126-156. Gale, Fred. (1998) ‘Cave 'Cave! Hic dragones': A Neo-Gramscian Deconstruction and Reconstruction of International Regime Theory’. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 2, 252-283 (Taylor & Francis Ltd) 277. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press). Kurth, J. “The Political Consequences of the Product Cycle: Industrial History and Political Outcomes.” International Organization. 33. No. 1, Winter 1979. Lenin, Vladimir. “Империализм, как высшая стадия капитализма”, [Imperialism as the highest form of Capitalism] http://www.esperanto.mv.ru/Marksismo/Lenin_Imperialism/imp.html#c9 [Accessed February 9, 2012] Panitch, Leo and Sam Gindin (2003) ‘Global capitalism and American empire’ in Leo Panitch and Colin Leys (eds) The new imperial challenge: socialist register 2004 (London: Merlin), 1–42. Panitch, Leo and Sam Gindin (2004) ‘Finance and American empire’ in Leo Panitch and Colin Leys (eds) The empire reloaded: socialist register 2005 (London: Merlin), 46–81. Panitch, Leo and Sam Gindin (2005) ‘Superintending global capital’, New Left Review, II: 35, 101–123. Pijl, Kees van der. (2007) ‘Capital and the state system: a class act’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2007. Robinson, William (2004) A theory of global capitalism (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press). Wallerstein, Immanuel. (1979) The capitalist world-economy : essays. (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press). Read More