Evaluation of Exploitation of World Politics Using Marxist Theory - Essay Example

Evaluation of Exploitation of World Politics Using Marxist Theory Introduction The International relation is the study that is concerned with the interrelationship that exists between states, or the nation-states are the principal aggregation of the existing political power. Practically as observed by Cox (1988, p. 128), it is involved with the outcomes of war and peace. Viewed from the traditional international relation theory, the state that is considered the main focus of international relations thinking was viewed as a single entity detached from the social environment. At that juncture, the Marxist revival of interest comes in handy to fill the gap that was created between society and the state. The Marxist critical theory which embodies historical materialism sought to broaden and diversify the notion of state and amplifying its social dimension (Linklater 2006, p. 256). In this present paper, the modern day politics that have become a centre stage for exploitation by giant and powerful states would be evaluated in light of Marxian theory. Critical theory would be unpacked as a way of setting the background the findings would be analyzed in reference to the topic, far from a harmony of interests, world politics today is characterized by exploitation. The development of critical theory This theory is closely associated with the Frankfurt School, which was set-up in 1923 during the Weimar Republic. Critical theory was considered to a view of society and social theory that was developed by a group of individuals, spanning two generations and were closely associated with the Frankfurt Institute (Linklater 2006, p. 252). Max Horkheimer first articulated the critical theory with its association with Frankfurt school in his 1937 essay, ‘Traditional and Critical Theory’ (Hoffman 1987, p. 232). To Horkheimer, the central characteristic of the critical theory is the realization of the connection that exist between knowledge and interests. To this end knowledge in not entirely independent of our existence but it can be said to be integral to social relation, and so has a social function. For Horkheimer, Critical Theory was considered an improvement of the traditional theory (Linklater 2006, p. 278). Traditional theory viewed knowledge as derived from the activity of describing the world. It did not actually have a comprehensive understanding of the world of why it is as it is since traditional theory had a limited prescribed view of rationality and significantly lacked the self-reflective application of reason (Cox 1988, p. 128 & Linklater 2006, p. 255). Within these facets, traditional theory for Horkheimer viewed the world as a set of ready-made facts awaiting discovery through the application of scientific methodology. Contrarily, critical theory is but an intellectual and practical effort which views events as part of their social genesis reason (Cox 1988, p. 129). That is to say, events are not independent of their social location but are social and historical products that are partly determined by the collective action of human beings within the framework of society (Hoffman 1987, p. 233). Critical theory admits change in the sense that it does not accept the prevailing ideas, actions, and social condition as unchanging or immutable, neither does it accept that existing rule of society, the boundaries of work and knowledge as natural and so inevitable (Maclean 2012, p. 45). Society is, however, understood from an outside position without rejecting that itself is but a product of society. In agreement, Linklater (2006, p. 278) admits that critical theory stands opposed to empirical claims about the social world that take the assumption that the existing structures are immutable. Under such, critical theory seeks to ascertain the prospects for a new form of community where every individual and group(s) attains higher levels of freedom (Maclean 2012, p. 45). In this light, its orientation towards the existing constraints is always shaped by the Marxian theory that all that is solid will eventually melt into air and by the belief that human beings can make more of their history under conditions of their choosing (Linklater2006, p. 280). Is the world politics today is characterized by exploitation? Findings and Evaluation The modern day politics is indeed characterized by exploitation driven by selfish interest. In many nations today, politicians have just used their political positions against the very people who elected them. Cases, where innocent electorates have been exploited grossly and politically abused, is no longer news. The rule of democracy that was the harmoniously conglomerated interests of the people is no longer reflected in many government leaderships today (Linklater 2007, p. 284). In democratic governance, the general public expresses their choice/ interest by selecting one leader who would be steered to gear the various interests harmoniously towards the general good of the people. When those who are in the power decides to rule with such exploitative hand, the result is no longer the rule by the people for the people and by the people but capitalism (Hoffman 1987, p. 290). Practically, this brings into live the Marxism back into the modern day politics. As a pertinent question that contemporary scholars should thus ask themselves is whether critical historical materialism has meaning for the world of politics today. Talking of exploitation, a clear image economic vulnerability of the people come into mind and the resultant would be emergence of social-political divides where the ‘haves’ exploits mercilessly the ‘have not’s (Rupert 2003, p.131). This, however, should be viewed from a global context, not limited to the nations, for instance, one developed nation exploits those which are considered undeveloped or developing countries. The international relations that had existed previously is one country would offer to aid another in its political mayhem has since be replaced with selfish interest. In the modern times, one nation offers her assistance with particular hidden agenda of benefit either from the country’s mineral deposits or availability of ready market (Cox 1988, p. 134). This creates a scenario of geopolitical competition between powerful capitalist states resulting in a trans-historical phenomenon governed by logic irreducible to that of class exploitation (Callinicos 2007, p. 538). In Karl Marx capitalist theory, capitalist relation of production are formed by two separation, namely labor-power from the means of production, leading to sale of labor-power to capital on terms that are likely to lead to its exploitation (Maclean 2012, p. 39). The second separation is that one where many capitalists jointly control the means of production from one another which eventually ends up into competitive interaction which inevitably places units of production under a cute and systematic pressure for them to maximize profitability (Linklater 2007, p. 282). Practically this reflects the currently witnessed exploitation of the developing nations by those that are said to be developed. In agreement Callinicos (2007, p. 535) concedes that geopolitical competition preludes capitalism. For instance looking back into the pre-capitalist past, basically the paradigmatically feudalism, a period where none of the exploiters or exploited had any incentive of increasing their income by productivity through enhanced technological innovations. At the time the main means that the ruling class had as a method of improving their material possession was through territorial expansion where the lords could seize other lords’ estates and peasants (Callinicos 2007, p. 541). This demanded great investment in the military so as to mobilize the necessary resources. Today, correlatively, the global technological advancement has simply changed the ugly face of the ancient strategy that monarchical or chieftains used to gain access to subsistence as well as remain in power (status quo). In other words, the industrialization of war has seen the ruling capitalists have a selective advantage in the whole process of inter-state competition. Analysis The paradigm of Marxian production kind of politics where the economically strong exploit the weak has unfortunately laid emphasis on the historical materialism. That is, in the modes of production, yet little attention has been set aside for the historical importance of race difference, state-building, war, morality, and culture, etc. (Rupert 2003, p.126). Further, within the confines of Marxian theories, a nation-state’s political vision would be limited to the defense of abolition of class relations and commodity production without clear vision of social order necessary to secure freedom outside the sphere of production (Callinicos 2007, p. 535). With what Linklater (2007, p. 284) referred to the unrivalled destructiveness of the modern instruments of violence, human communities have since become more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The self-interest perversion have humbled humanity at the mercy of crumbling economic forces and the steadily increasing environmental harm which would soon make the planet inhabitable (Rupert 2003, p.127 & Cox 1988, p. 128). Further contrary to the ancient times when owing to the immediate security threats, human society often thought only from the standpoint of their particular community, the unprecedented global challenges have made human society to have a wider global scope yet self-interest remains. Coincidentally, (Rupert 2003, p.135) observed that like the traditional culture modern society still believe that a loss of one’s citizen is still graver than the death of a foreigner. Practically, this point to the line of weakness that humanity still lack a universalistic moral belief that can be used to determine a collective response to the global problem. This explains the reason as to why one community finds it quite conventional and very ‘right’ to exploit another without any regret. In agreement (Maclean 2012, p. 45) that many of the developed nations used developing nations as stepping stones for their advancement. Conclusion Needless to say, the modern day politics is marked by exploitation of the economically weak countries by those which are said to be economically giants and developed. Internationalization of production has seen some powerful state take control of the very means of production in the various countries upon which though foreign their influence still dictates the very distribution of the produced goods. The resultant is the creation of hegemonic international social structure where the powerful have full directorship of young and developing nations. References Callinicos, A, 2007, Does Capitalism Need the State System? Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 20 (4). Cox, R, 1988, Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory, Millennium, Vol. 10, no. 2. Hoffman, M, 1987, Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate, Millennium, vol. 16, no. 2. Linklater, A, 2006, The Achievements of Critical Theory, in Smith, Booth, and Zalewski, Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty, and Humanity. Maclean, J, 2012, Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect, Millennium, vol. 17, no. Rupert, M, 2003, Globalizing Common Sense: a Marxian-Gramscian (re-)vision, Review of International Studies vol. 29. Read More