Liberal and Marxist Perspectives on International Politics - Assignment Example

Liberal and Marxist perspectives on International Politics Liberalism approach to international politicsholds the view that the application of reason and universal ethics to international relations can lead to a more orderly, just and cooperative world since nations are not always on the verge of war. Marxist view on the other hand rejects the liberal view on state cooperation and focuses mainly on the economic aspect where it uses mainly materialistic interpretation of historical development in its beliefs. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels inspired it in the 19th century and ever since it has inspired several political ideologies and social movements which have been witnessed in the past. Both liberal and Marxist perspectives on international politics agree on internationalism where they both support internationalism as opposed to nationalism arguing that an economic and political cooperation among nations for a common benefit is more important than the running of independent states. Liberalism supports this view by advocating for an international economy where profit making is all that matters while Marxist supports the notion by supporting the international dictatorship of the working class. They also have a common view on exploitation of people in a particular nation where liberalism sees a country as simply an economy to exploit and does not pay much attention on the wellbeing of the citizens. Women, children and the traditional unit of family are viewed as a burden to the overall profit that can be made from the various business activities the people engage in (Megill 2002, p.262). Marxist also views the economy of a country with contempt and sees the people with a bourgeoisie prejudice where the patriarchal males strongly support the idea of bringing the women to their work places to do the same work they do. Liberal and Marxist perspectives on international politics both agree and involve themselves with social change in which they believe is important for realization of the society’s goals (Peden, & Sterba 1989, p.8). They argue that a form of societal change must come about in order for most people to be able to improve their well-being and thus lead to betterment of the general condition of the community. They also both recognize and appreciate that the state normally affects the people in their different economic pursuits in a negative way that is detrimental either directly or indirectly. However, they differ on the way of reducing these negative effects of the state since the liberal focus on measures of increasing the freedom of the people whereas Marxism believe that the state is the actual problem. Marx also agreed with the liberal economic viewpoint that a free-market is good since it has benefits that are gained from competition and they thus both support the notion of free market. Liberals are concerned with a variety of groups ranging from a single individual to a particular group, corporation, and nation among other groups nevertheless the starting point for analyzing according to liberalism is at individual level. This ideology thus analyzes the behavior of these diverse groups keeping in mind that individuals are the main actors whose personal efforts are motivated by the desire to make profit. Through the individual efforts to make personal profits, the condition of the whole economy is improved and thus benefiting majority of people in the global economy in the long last. In contrast to the liberal ideology of analyzing individuals and states Marxist theory focuses on other units with class and the interests of the class being the main unit of analysis. Marxism rejects the importance of individuals in influencing the global economy and therefore does not consider their impact but advocates for empowerment of the working class, which is believed to be the main influencers of the global economy. Liberal perspective of international politics recognizes the role played by companies and firms in the global economy but fails to recognize the importance of the state in influencing the international economy. This view believe that the government which can be interpreted to mean the state should not involve itself with the economy but should leave it to the above mentioned individual actors (Jackson & Sorensen 2013, p.103). The government is thus perceived to be inflicting additional cost to the people by its involvement in the process of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services. Capitalist who own and control majority of the resources are believed to be the key actors in the economy since they are the one who control trade and the means of production in their pursuit for profit. Marxism on the other hand sees firms and companies as exploiters since they own the means of production but they offer unfair remuneration to the working class, which usually comprises of the majority of the population. They thus believe that firms and generally the capitalists are tools of oppression and exploitation because of their power to centralize capital while expressing dominance to the laborers (Allman 2001, p.164). As a result Marxism view the state as being representative of the small rich class at the expense of the larger community which is supposed to be the main target in any democracy. This tendency shows that the rich will continue being richer while the poor continue being poorer which can be translated to the global political economy. Marxist thus argues because of this behavior, the developed countries continue oppressing the developing countries making it extremely difficult for them to come out of their poverty and be developed. Liberalist approach believes that cooperation among the nations is the only tool for forward advancement for the benefit of the individual people and the entire nations (Sterling-Folker 2002, p.18). This system of belief discourages conflicts and advocates for peaceful settlement of disputes since they belief that the countries are interdependent and should thus avoid anything that seeks to destroy this good relationship. Cooperation is perceived to be a positive-sum game where when one person benefits the other benefits as opposed to Marxist who believe interdependence to be a zero-sum game. Marxist believes that when one person or country benefits then definitely the other will lose since they cannot benefit all of them. They believe that economic relations lead to inefficiencies as some centers increase their economic allocation at the expense of others, fuelling social conflicts. This theory thus does not encourage any form of interdependence among the countries but instead encourages nations to be independent in their economic operations in order to be effective in production (Stuart 1992 p.86). Liberalism advocates for globalization and see it as an artificial force that removes the boundaries among countries by encouraging production to prevail across these boundaries (Schneider, Barbieri, & Gleditsch 2003, p.128). Globalization is perceived to be a tool for common good for all nations and thus should be pursued and encouraged at all cost without reservations in order to improve the well-being of the people. As a result liberalistic ideology encourage free trade and freedom to prevail arguing that the economy should be laissez faire meaning there should be no disruptions whatsoever. Furthermore, the ideology encourages open system of market to prevail rather than the closed to prevail in the individual countries and economies. Marxism opposes globalization since it is believed to be a system of intervention for freedom, which benefits a few rich people who are mainly the capitalist at the expense of the workers. Marxist further argues that globalization is a tool of institutionalizing global management of the world economy for selfish gains of the developed countries and it should thus not be encouraged. Liberal system of voting is characterized by free, fair and competitive elections where the people elect their leaders who come from diverse political parties (Friedman, Oskanian, & Pacheco 2013, p.40). In majority of the nations that uphold this political system there is usually a formally written constitution or an informal one that empowers the elected individuals to exercise power. The constitution also serves as a tool to control the powers of the government and to separate the power across the different arms of government such as the judiciary, parliament and executive among others. The liberals thus stagger the worth of a vote depending on the intellect whereas Marxism argues that the working class should be the determinant. They argue that it is unfair to allow the control of the entire country based on an intellectual aristocracy as in the case of liberalism, which encourages division when it awards more worth to the intellect class. Marxism also differ with the liberal perspective on the aspect of final result of the ideologies where Marxism argue that because of the exploitation of the workers in a liberalistic nations there will be one day a revolution when the workers will get tired of the oppression. Marx believed that revolution was a natural phenomenon that would occur naturally in any country that advanced in capitalism and was thus unavoidable regardless of the measures instituted (Davidshofer 2014, p.77). He argued that there will be several phases of revolution which would ultimately lead to communism which will be characterized by communal ownership of property, every person contributing according to his ability and everyone would get what they need from the society without restrictions. Liberalism encourages peace to prevail in between the countries that uphold this system of ideologies and the people in liberalistic nations are more peaceful than their counterparts in Marxist states are. This is because the people in the democratic states can voice the opinions without any form of fear and since they are guided by rational thinking, they are able to make sound decisions. A good example of this was witnessed in the United States of America when the people protested against the countries involvement in Vietnam forcing the government to stop its operations in Vietnam (Gibbons, 1989 P.222). The situation of prisoner’s dilemma is well illustrated in this theory where the liberal people are supposed to make decision on the right course of action to take bearing in mind the negative consequences of each of this decision. Marxist on the other hand do not encourage in any way sound reasoning when making economic and political decisions that may affect international relations. They instead encourage the nations to force their way, which will make them enjoy the greatest benefits regardless of the consequences of their actions to the other countries. Thus, it is evident that many similarities and differences between liberal and Marxist perspectives on international politics where the differences are more than the similarities. Various researchers as reconcilable have described most of the differences unless the systems of beliefs of the two approaches to international politics are changed. There is however a need to continue analyzing and evaluating the two scenarios in order to come up with ways that will make the upholding the two ideologies by different countries to improve their international politics. References Allman, P., 2001. Critical education against global capitalism: Karl Marx and revolutionary critical education. Westport, Conn. [u.a.], Bergin & Garvey. Davidshofer, W.J., 2014. Marxism and the Leninist revolutionary model. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Friedman, R., Oskanian, K., & Pacheco Pardo, R., 2013. After Liberalism? The Future of Liberalism in International Relations. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. Gibbons, W. C., 1989. The U.S. government and the Vietnam war: executive and legislative roles and relationships. Part III, Part III. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press. Jackson, R. H., & Sørensen, G., 2013. Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Megill, A., 2002. Karl Marx: the burden of reason (why Marx rejected politics and the market). Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Peden, C., & Sterba, J. P., 1989. Freedom, equality, and social change. Lewiston, E. Mellen Press Schneider, G., Barbieri, K., & Gleditsch, N. P., 2003. Globalization and armed conflict. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. Sterling-Folker, J., 2002. Theories of international cooperation and the primacy of anarchy: explaining US international policy-making after Bretton Woods. Albany, NY, State University of New York Press. Stuart, R. C., 1992. Marxism at work: ideology, class and French socialism during the Third Republic. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More