The Relevance of Marxism Theory in International Relations - Coursework Example

Marxism and International Relations Introduction The common question that remains in the minds of IR is whether Marxism theory is still relevant since the Soviet Union has ceased practicing the version of Marxist ideology. The end of Cold War seemed to have rendered Marxism irrelevant. However, the emergence of global problems related to capitalism has renewed interest in Marxism theories. Marxism has evolved in significant ways since its ideas were advanced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in the mid-nineteenth century. These ideas have been subject to conflicting interpretations mainly because of their tendency to change during Marx’s lifetime. The succeeding generation of Marxist writers is the ones who have developed a systematic set of ideas on international relations. Marxism became popular to a point where China and Soviet Union adopted it as their official ideology. However, they reshaped it to serve their own national interests. His prediction that the recurring economic crises may become increasingly severe thus impelling the suffering proletariat to rebel against the system is becoming true. Furthermore, the current competition among states is forcing the capitalist states to increase their efficiency in order to avoid extinction. While Marxism theories continue to be fiercely contested, they continue to be very relevant to international relations. While various theories continue to elicit more or less compelling arguments concerning IR, none of them captures the complexity of the current global politics. The complexity of the current world politics An explanation provided by Drezneris that the present world politics are complex and no single theory has captured this complexity (2009, p.65). Many stones are yet to be unturned. Several factors such as nested and overlapping institutions, forum-shopping, and regime complexes are shaping the manner of international relations. Failure by theorists to capture the complexity of international relations has brought some political, economical, and social complications. Marx theories seemed to have captured some of these complexities although not comprehensively. For example, 100 years after Marx’s death, huge increases in poverty started being witnessed in 1990s (Chigopa and Ziso 2010, p.90). Mitchell (2003) predicted that if this trend continues, by the year 2147, some regions such as the Sub-Saharan Africa will have half of its people languishing in poverty. In world politics, there is prevalence of inter-intersections; theorists have not completely understood the system simply because they only sum up the characteristics of the parts. They also sum up the bilateral relations between pairs of them. To be more accurate, there is a propensity of actions to interact thus producing results that cannot be comprehended by theories. To explain the complexity of interactions between nations, one can take the case of two chemicals –taken individually they may be harmless; however, taking a mixture of both may bring harmful effects. Secondly, there have been cases of patients suffering from taking a combination of two or three medicines that would have been helpful if they were taken individually. It is possible to obtain different results depending on the structure of choices and the actors’ strategic moves. It is argued that, concerning the international politics and taking the example of pan-Arabism and pro-Palestinian sentiments, when Egypt was strong, its influence was enhanced by pan-Arabism and pro-Palestinian sentiments (Telhami 1990, p. 12). One cannot infer that such sentiments can have similar impact on another rivalry between two actors because of the difference in the interacting variables. In explaining the outcomes of world politics, theories have been prone to examine one actor’s behaviour while overlooking the other with which it is interacting. Teachers often make parallel errors through their failure to explore how the failure of students in tests may be attributed to the question they ask. Another complexity arises from actors’ reactions towards each other and the anticipations of the moves other interacting actors are likely to take, for example, in military and diplomatic surprises, one state may believe that the impediment to taking certain action is great to the extent that its adversary cannot undertake it. The resulting effect is that the state will not do much to avert or prepare for the action that may be taken by its adversary. One the other hand, Realist thinkers argue that most states constantly raise their defence capacity to enable them to defend themselves and advance their material interests necessary for survival. They assume that states have to do everything to maximize their likelihood for existence. Marxism transcends this thought. Marx and International Relations Marx did not write much literature about international relations; however, his ideas are relevant to the discipline of international relations to the extent that his ideas have found popularity among historians, politicians, academicians, and politics researchers. International relations are often accompanied by crises and conflicts because of capitalism and the inequalities arising from it. Marxism theory expounds how capitalist states employ war and clashes in order for them take control weak states (Chigopa and Ziso 2010, p.90). The rising concerns about the existence of conflicts between different states gave birth to the discipline of international relations. The level of these concerns reached a high level in the 20th century because of the two World Wars as well as the appearance of nuclear weapons. Therefore, the theory of International Relations can be considered to be a new phenomenon. The end of Cold War may seem to have disposed Marx’s ideas to the dustbin of history. However, the popularity of Marx theories rose in popularity because of their concern with the economic role in determining the aspects of political and social relations. This made Marx theories to offer a way of genuine escape from the capitalist system. In as much as he was critical of capitalism, Marx attached some value to it. However, he understood that capitalism had certain flaws. Some of these flaws are its oppressiveness and exploitative nature. The most notable division in Marx’s works is the one between capitalists and workers. According to Marx, capitalists exploit workers to their own advantage. This is the backbone of the capitalist system. The most important element of capitalism is competition. Competition exists between states, and this becomes the hand from which capitalism feeds. Without competition, capitalism would come to an end. Marx theories extensively explored the issue of capitalism (Marx and Engels 1848). Owing to the fact that competition will never end, capitalism will continue to thrive and Marx theories will continue to gain relevance in international relations studies. The capitalist class extends its control to all instruments of government (the courts, military, and police) in their respective societies. Other instruments include educational institutions, media, and religious organizations among others. Much of what happens internationally is based on the power of the dominant class. Marxists assume that the state only acts as the puppet of the dominant class. The dominant classes even form global capitalism when they globalize their capitalism. Marx arguments will continue to find relevance in the current time because there is continued use of military power by the capitalists. However, states do not always exercise their autonomy based on the interest of the dominant class, but they sometimes act on based on the interests of ordinary citizens. In his analysis, Marx captured the picture of global society with his ideas based on social reality considered globally (Marx and Engels 1848). Marx’s argument is that, states are institutions serving the bourgeoisie. This makes states the instruments of dominant social class. The main actors in the international society are not states; rather, they are the social classes. In his explanation, Domhoff(2010, 257)demonstrates how the owners of highly competitive corporations can influence government policies. This dominance has been found to be strongest in the US compared to other industrialized democratic countries (Baker 2007, 1 p.12; Smeeding 2008, p.4). Relevance of Marx theory on international relations According to Cox (1981), “theory is always for someone and for some purpose.” (207). He further attaches value and importance to all theories asserting that they all have a perspective (207). According to Cox (1983, p.58),Gramsci maintained the state as the basic entity in international relations. He further asserted that social conflicts take place in the states. Social classes are built in states. Social classes build their hegemonies, which have their own characteristics and unique combinations. The working class can be considered international in nature. Gramsci rises in support of Marx’s thought that IRs follows fundamental social relations (Cox 1983, p.58). International institutions have rules, which have been initiated by the states which establish the hegemony. These rules receive state support. However, the dominant states have the greatest influence, followed by the second-rank countries. Formal participation often favors the dominant states. This is where Marx ideas come into play. The most appropriate example that fits this case is that of World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (Cox 1983, p. 63). These institutions are considered to be examples of world capitalism and their meetings trigger protest of workers from different parts of the world (Chigoraand Ziso2010, p. 90). Ideas in Marxism and Principal areas in International Relations Karl Marx died 121 years ago, in 1883 but his ideas remain indispensable (Callinicos 2004, p.9). Though they have been criticized for a long period, they can be used to shape a world that appears to be getting out of order, getting chaotic and more irrational by the day. The ideas in Marxism are as relevant as when they were first formulated. It is important to study Karl Marx thoughts and ideas because they are the ones that have fundamentally changed the way human beings see the world. Callinicos (2004, p.9) ranks Karl Marx with Galileo, Plato, Einstein, Plato, Freud, Darwin, and Aristotle. Marx used theory to understand as well as transform the world around him. Human labour transforms nature and alters human beings themselves. Marx considered production to be a social activity. A social activity involves cooperation of two or more individuals regardless of the conditions. Marx did not conceive of people as existing outside society because they are fundamentally social creatures. He challenged the view of those who conceived human beings as isolated individuals arguing that this could only serve to justify capitalist society. He challenged the ones who viewed an individual as Robinson Crusoe on his island (Callinicos 2004, p.69). Marx’s argument is that production as a social activity can bring changes in the organization, which will further bring changes in society and in people’s beliefs, conduct, and desires. This leads to the concept of historical materialism. According to Marx, a worker sells his strength and skills to the capitalist thus making him to lose control of products of his labour and the labour itself. In capitalism, the worker is dominated by the products of his labour. In Marx’s mind, human beings are producers with their production possessing two aspects – material and social. These are Marx’s ideas through production, individuals meet their needs by acting on and transforming nature; production is a social process where individuals cooperate to produce what they need. Marx calls the former the force of production, while the latter, the relation of production (Marx and Engels 1848).Class relations have their foundation based on exploitation and according to Marx; this is the key to understanding the society. Callinicos (2004, p.71) observes that, the current international relations are based on exploitations; thus they are the key to understanding the international society. At this point, Marx ideas cannot be ruled out when it comes to the study of international relations. Contrary to owner-slave relationship, under capitalism, the worker is legally free, exploited not by physical subjection from the owner, but by economic pressures. According to Callinicos 2004, p.69), this mode of production has become rampant if the current world. Today, workers have to choose between selling their power/skills to the capitalist and starvation. The capitalist can use his power to exploit the worker to the extent where the worker’s power and skills are used over time to create surplus labour. Marx’s aim when he advanced this idea was to capture the essential features of the capitalist economy. Towards this end Marx emphasized that capitalism is a world system (Marx and Engels 1848). In the world market, competition forms the basis for capitalist production. Under capitalism, world systems were formed where some regions of Asia and America became subordinate to European powers. Africa provided slaves to work in the plantation in West Indies and South America. According to Marx and Engels (1848), the primitive accumulation of capital concentrated wealth in the hands of European capitalists. Later, this wealth was used to purchase labour power from peasants. This entire process is what drew the entire world into a unified economic system. Relations arose from this process; the destruction of India’s textile industry provided a larger market for British textile products. Britain dominated the world economy triggering a challenge from the US, France, and Germany. Though strong countries are different from the way they were in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, all are capitalist social formations. According to Marx critics, capitalism has changed since Marx. However, Marx theories can guide the Marx’s own world and the present one too. Capitalism may have changed, but the only thing that has changed is the owner of capitalism. The state has become a large-scale capitalist, producing commodity via the nationalized companies that it owns. The large proportion of workforce is employed from the same country and abroad. This workforce becomes the provider of education, health, and other services. Finally, the overall management of the economy falls in the hands of the government. The state becomes the defender of external interests of capital. This gives rise to the intensification of military competition between states. This military competition is the one, which precipitated the two world wars. There is intensification of capitalism among individual states and their power makes them to ignore the effects of world crisis. According to Chigora and Ziso (2010, p.92), the Gulf War (1990-1991) was the United States’ tool to help it maintain its control of the Middle Eastern countries in order to continue accessing oil from the region. Up to this point, this paper is employing Marx’s ideas; therefore asserting the relevance of Marx theories in International Relations. From his analysis, Marx, concluded that the working class should overthrow the capitalist system, and replace it with classless society. This statement makes more meaning today as it would have done during Marx’s time. Today, there is need for socialist revolution if the world is to recover from economic depression and feed its 800 million people who are hungry in the Third World. This shows the relevance of Marx’s ideas. These ideas may even seem more relevant today than they were 121 years ago. Chigora and Ziso (2010, p.91), regular statistics from the UN and the World Bank are painting clear picture of an alarming human misery and death. Nuclear weapons are in the hands of capitalist states, capitalist states are exercising their military power more aggressively among many other ills. This is the level of capitalism that is being witnessed in the developing world. Marx would say that all classes be participate in averting these ills because in their extreme, they would negatively affect all including the capitalist. A capitalist would appear insane if one desired a nuclear war. Critical Theory According to Cox (1981, p.209), Critical theory is a theory of history because it concerns itself with the past as well as the continuing process of historical change. Critical theory attempted to explain why Marx’s prophesy concerning the social revolution failed to occur as expected. Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse tried to give Marxism relevance in 20th century capitalism by reconstructing the logic and order (Agger 1991, p.107). He further argued that capitalism deepens false consciousness. As it has been observed earlier in this paper, states have become large-scale capitalists in the current world politics. Marxism is one of the two currents that have attempted to write say something important concerning international relations and world orders. Together with realism, Marxism is considered to have employed a critical approach to international relations. According to Marxist scholars, state-to-state relations are dependent on the fundamentals dynamics of global class relations. Cox (1981) argues that one cannot make sense of state behaviour without understanding the interest and behaviour of global capital. Marxist approach transcends the limitations of other theories such as Realism. Marxism leads to notions of security that transcend the State security which Realists attached importance to, to notions of human security. A Marxist would argue that the effects of war surpass the battlefield to affect family life and other aspects of social relations. Conclusion This paper argues that, Marxism has an enduring relevance. Marx is long dead; however, Marxism lives on. Marx made some wrong predictions, but other theories have their flaws too. The same could be said for realism and other IR theories. Though some of the things Marx predicted are awful, they can be proved that they were right. These things include China’s embracement of capitalism and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Marx predicted these things long before these countries existed. Continuous exploitation of the poor continues to be witnessed where billions of people continue to live on less than two dollars per day. According to World Bank (2002) the wealth is becoming concentrated. The living standards of workers are declining due to downsizing, transnational mergers, and outsourcing. In conclusion, Marxism’s relevance and importance remains and continues to play a key role in understanding international relations. This can clearly be seen through the most influential theory of world systems. References Agger, B. 1991, Critical Theory, Poststructuralism, Postmodernism: Their Sociological Relevance, Annual Review Sociology, 17, 105-131. Baker, Dean. 2007. The United States since 1980. New York: Cambridge University Press. Callinicos, A. 2004, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, London: Bookmarks Publications. Chigora, P and Ziso, E. 2010, Marxist-Leninist Theory of International Relations: Emerging Thinking in the 21st Century, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12 (8), 89-98. Cox, R. 1983, Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations: An Essay in Method, Millennium. Journal of International Studies 12 (2), 62-75. Cox, R. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10 (2), 126-155. Domhoff, W. 2010, Who Rules America? Challenges to Corporate and Class Dominance, New York: McGraw-Hill Company. Drezner, D. 2009, The Power and Peril of International Regime Complexity, A Symposium of International Regime Complexity, 7 (1), 65-70. Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1848, The Communist Manifesto, Moscow: Progress Publishers. Mitchell, D. 2003, Growing World Poverty and Conflict show the Barbarity of Capitalism. Available http://www.marxist.com/world-poverty-barbarity-capitalism090703.htm [Accessed February 10 2015]. ShibleyTelhami. 1990. Power and Leadership in International Bargaining: The Path to the Camp David Accords. New York: Columbia University Press. Smeeding, Timothy. 2008. Poorer by comparison: Poverty, work, and public policy in comparative perspective. Pathways 1, 3–5. Read More