The Relevance of Marxism to International Relations - Essay Example

The Relevance of Marxism to International Relations [Students Name] [Course Title] [Tutor’s Name] [Date] “whom am I now to believe, political economy or ethics? ... It stems from the very nature of estrangement that each sphere applies to me a different and opposite yardstick – ethics one and political economy another; for each is a specific estrangement of man and focuses attention on a particular field of estranged essential activity, and each stands in an estranged relation to the other.” Marx 1844 It is evident that Marxism has and is being considered to have a peculiar destiny within the field of social science and international relations. It is also known that Marxism has had strong influence on various academic subjects such as sociology, history, international relations and development studies. Based on matter related to international relations, most researchers and scholars relative scantiness of Marxist writing was mainly focused on IR. Here, paucity does not necessarily to preclude quality but rather it should be noted that few Marxist theory do not offer a clear approach to international relations. Today, Marxist is being considered as a gradual approach to IR that has emerged by way of a series of analysts which are known to situate themselves within but still poses diverse tradition of analysis (Zolberg, 14). Further scholars are continuing to argue that Marxism does not easily to the three grand debates namely; traditionalism versus behaviouralism, utopianism versus realism and finally, world system theory versus state-centrism. It is quite evident that Marxist writing on international relation is constantly explained by the fact that division of labor in social science which is known to have cause economics and politics separation. This separation is termed to be of great emphasis on various scientific studies which are normally considered to be within the general framework towards positivism (Zolberg, 19). This paper will purpose to discuss the place of Marxism in international relations (IR) and give an explanation as to how Marxist theories of class divisions and labor help us to understand the globalized world. It is argued that the core that surrounds Marxists approach to IR is connected to the concept where production of conceptions, ideas, consciousness are first interwoven with the real language of life. Through this concept, it is noted clearly to note that Marx did not issue a clear layout of differences that exists between ideology and ideas. This later resulted to distinguishing ideological component clearly stating that not all ideas are perceived to be part of what is known as ideology (Biersteker, 4). Despite the theory being avoided in the studies for long periods in the European states, Marxism still remains a valuable pillar in international relations even today. In to fully understand the relevance of Marxism in international relations it is vital to identify the basic principles that are addressed by the ideas as addressed by Karl Marx. In his views he holds that the world is divided into classes that are determined to succeed at all odds and not nations that are politically determined. This has conceived nations that are have economy triumph over the politics. The international state system to the Marxists is constructed by the capitalist and is only meant to serve the requirements and significance of the wealthy states and unions. The few wealthy elite whose interests are served are only keen to expand and protect their wealth (Biersteker, 5). Karl Marx was highly critical of the capitalist globalized economy terming it as the worst form of political economy in the world as it yielded to inequalities as well as propagating exploitation of human and natural resources among nations and societies. This he argues is because the proletariats who are the wage laborers purposed to sell their labor have no ownership to the means of production. The bourgeoisie purchase cheap labor from the proletariats in exchange for a salary (Berki, 95). According to Marxism the idealists and the realists always serve the ideologies that have been introduced by the economic elites. These, mainly serve their interests to justify and defend the global inequalities. Marxists hold to the belief that the fundamental unit of the analysis of the international system is the class. The international system to them is has been constructed by the upper class society in the wealthiest nations so as to protect their self interests. Marxism has thus led to the development of vital theories one of which has become successful and widely taught and used. Immanuel Wallersten’s world system theory is the most widely used and acceptable that is widely used and accepted theories in IR that has its origin from Marxism (Engels, 129). The world system theory the two worlds that exist i.e. the first and the third world are merely components formed from a larger system that originated way back in the early 16th century in the period of the European colonialism. These central and super power nations are the main beneficiaries of most of the productions of the globalized economy at the expense of the many developing so called third world countries. It is of great importance to notice that the third world countries have always been suppliers of manpower and the natural resources required for the production process thus end up being heavily exploited by the youth (Wolf, 35). The semi peripheral states are those that do not fit in any of the first or third class but have their place in the middle. The Marxists believe that the globalization that is witnessed in this era is mainly dominated by the capitalist view. This is evident as the idea has completely divided and transformed human society into a distinct collection of states that where the principle source of conflict is witnessed through the divisions in the class rather than states and nations (Halliday, 49). This is heavily and exhaustively explained in the dependency theory which has its origin from Marxism that argues that the main essence of the international relations is the transfer of resources both natural and human from the poor nations to the rich which are mostly the westernized nations. The poor nations in the world are a source of cheap and readily available labor and natural resources. The policies developed in the IR mainly originate from the wealthy nations and are thus meant to maintain the existing inequality. The existing trade organizations like the world trade organizations are seen as avenues though which this is propagated (Halliday, 60). Globalization has reduced the society into classes that are deeply rooted in the production at social relations which can not be mistakably be referred to as relations of distribution as a result of increased consumption or as a result of their existing ideological reflections. The main concern of Marxists is therefore not the ideas of the workers but rather the positions that have been reserved fro them in the society. The globalized economy has reduced the states into increased social production which is only meant for the appropriation of profits to the few elites in the society. This has resulted into the conflict between socialization and the alienating phases of capitalism. The workers are seen to be producing commodities that are only meant to serve the better interests of the social elite with minimal or no benefits to themselves. The profits of the productions are only meant to benefit the bourgeoisie owners of the production companies that the poor workers work for (Kubalcova, 125). This is evident in the globalized world today as the imperialism witnessed in this era is the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism is brought about by the existence of a monopoly stage of capitalism. The international relations between various countries in the region is meant only for production concentration thus increased conception of monopolies. The rich nations have dominance over the poor nations in the pretense of free trade but in the real sense increasing monopoly thus creating a contradiction of monopoly. The growth and increase in monopoly by the rich states has led to the existence of a dominant financial capital that is seen to be of superior value to the others. This has been witnessed by the partnering of states into regional trade blocks so as to increase and strengthen their financial units. The monopolies that have been conceived as a result of this play a decisive function in the economic life (Kubalcova, 145). Capitalism in the present world is the driving force in the levels of international interdependence. This is a process that is believed to be behind the unification and transformation of the human species. His interest was mainly focused on how the processes of industrialization have wrought the contemporary world and the social formations as a result of capitalism. According to Marxism, capitalism has resulted in both weakening and strengthening of the bonds that nationalism has so far had on the political identities of the people (Warren, 125). Marxism believe that capitalism has strived to break down every of intercourse and conquered the whole world for its market and to overcome the “tyranny of distance by reducing to a minimum the time spent in motion through one place to another.” This has been enhanced through the increased inventions in communication through internet media and the ease in movement from one part of the continent to the other through improved transport means by road, rail and air (McClellan, 167). The human labor makes up the exchange value of goods and services which results in to less pay for the laborers for the real value that they produce. This difference between what the laborers produce and the amount of pay they get is referred to as surplus value. The capitalists thus invest the profits attained from the surplus value that they get thus amassing their wealth. The proletariats are hereby left with no choice other than to proceed to display their labor for cheap purchase for them to be able to survive. This pushes up production and increases competition as the prices for the commodities and services keep rising and falling. The international laws that are meant to quell this only play a blind eye and even at most cases help to propagate it even further. The need to constantly grow through conquering of markets for the produced products chases the bourgeoisie all over the globe with the effects of globalization (Morton, 134). In the attempt to reach a balance to this situation, most instances result in international conflict. This according to Marxism is the beginning of the collapse of the capitalism globalization as he cheap labor will be excessively poor and the new markets will become more exhausted and not able to adequately support or consume the new products and services. This is evident in the past as the search for new markets resulted into the conflict between the imperialist powers during the First World War. The proletariat has no capacity to overthrow the capitalism but have the mass power to provide a revolution as they try to topple the private ownership globalized capitalism whose main pursuit is to amass profits at the expense of the many proletariats. This is because the spread of globalization by the capitalistic ideas has yielded a materialistic society with organizations formed out of the economic relationships and the economy thus allowing the bourgeoisie to deeply exploit the proletariat (Walker, 124). In conclusion, Marxism urges the poor countries adopt economic policies that are aimed at are aimed to get them break out of the economic controls that are designed by the wealthy nations. The development of economic control policies to aid in this will include the development of import substitution which diverges away from the common export based forms. The governments are to develop policies that are aimed at cushioning and creating barriers for their producing citizens from exploitation rather that depending on the provisions and models that are developed by the World Bank and other institutions that have been created and designed by the wealthy nations. The theories are both useful in IR as they offer great and useful analysis to those who view the globe as an economic conflict pitching the poor and the rich. The theories are vital as they display the rich nations as the owners who are up to benefit from the poor nation’s cheap and available resources and manpower. The rich nations are the property analogous who are within the upper class whereas the poor nations are the analogous of poor human capital. The theories are vital as they reflect and determine the consequences of a capitalist system to social and political relations. In as much as the theories with great emphasis to the world system approach paying more emphasis on the economic aspect in the determination of the political and social relations it offers great insight in the identification of the ill strategies that the poor nations have chosen and thus giving us the greater opportunity to critically think of positive and more innovative models thorough which the poor nations can expand their horizons and be independent. References Berki, N, “On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations.” World Politics (October 1971): 80-105. Biersteker, T. J. 1999. ‘Eroding Boundaries, Contested Terrain’ in International Studies Review, 1:1, 3-9. Engels, F, The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. Found in The Marxist Library, Works of Marxism-Leninism, Vol XXII. New York: International Publishers, 1942. Halliday, F, 1994, ‘A Necessary Encounter: Historical Materialism and International Relations’ in Rethinking International Relations (Basingstoke: Macmillan), 47-73. Kubalcova, V. & Cruickshank, A. Marxism and International Relations, Oxford 1985, Chapter 10: ‘Marxists: The Professors’. McClellan, D, ed. Karl Marx: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Morton, D, 2004. ‘New follies on the state of globalization debate’ in Review of International Studies, 30:1, 133-147. Walker, R. B. J. 1995. Inside/outside: international relations as political theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Warren, B. Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism, London 1980, Chapters 1 & 2. Wolf, E. Europe and the People Without History, Berkeley 1982, Chapter 10: ‘Crisis and Differentiation in Capitalism’. Zolberg, A. ‘Origins of the Modern World System: a Missing Link’, World Politics, Volume XXXIII No.2, January 1981. Read More