Different Marxist Theories - Essay Example

Introduction: The three Marxist theories which will be analyzed within this brief response include alienation/dependency theory, and gender theory. As such all of these are methods of analyzing the means by which states/individuals interact with one another based upon key attributes of human relations. As a function of such a level of analysis, this brief response will provide a deeper level of inquiry into each of these as well as delineating how the theoretical framework of each of these theories applies in helping to understand personal as well as international relations from a different standpoint. Alienation Theory/Dependency Theory: Firstly, dependency/alienation theory is an understanding of the fact that resources around the globe flow from the poorer nations to the richer nations; thereby creating something of a cyclical experience whereby the richer and more developed nations continue to lean heavily upon the poorer and less developed nations; both as a means of labor exploitation and raw material accrual. The theory itself helps to explain the way in which some nations around the globe rapidly transitioned their economies and integrated with the world whereas others continue to struggle in something of an endless cycle of subsistence. Rather than coming to the understanding that trade, modernization, and the integration of nations on other fronts is a net positive that helps to enrich all partners involved, those that integrate with dependency theory postulate that this is more of a one way street and only one or a handful of participants is able to generate the true gain within these interactions. By much the same understanding, alienation is the polar opposite of the dependency theory. Although Marx was fundamentally opposed to an understanding of global mercantilism or capitalism, the flow of goods and the production potential of individuals throughout the world was something that was a necessary and integral component of Marxism. As such, the alienation theory is dependent upon those actions that are not controlled by stakeholders within society (Chibber, 2011). Further, within the alienation theory, Karl Marx promotes the understanding that within the capitalist model, the worker is only seen as a component case of potential for greater capital accrual. However, within an idyllic sense of the socialist paradigm, the communist model promotes an integrated concept through which the overall level of alienation from personhood and society that the worker experiences is minimized (Susen, 2012). Naturally, as can be seen from past examples, the actual way in which the Marxist paradigm is implemented reveals a situation in which this alienation theory is perhaps even greater compounded as compared to the way it is within a truly capitalist system. However, by understanding the fact that a level of disenfranchisement and alienation is ultimately a core concern that oftentimes provide the impetus for individuals within the capitalist system to integrate with communist ideals and promote a new paradigm of interaction, Marx effectively points to the fact that frustration and a sense of meaning/belonging is one of the core necessities that communism can provide to those that seek an alternative to capitalism. Before delving into the next approach, it is also necessary to understand the fact that the alienation theory has effectively been used by agitators and promoters of communism the world over; as a means of engaging workers and seeking to promote an understanding of the fact that the capitalist system does not value their contributions or their lives. Naturally, a level of propaganda exists within this particular point of view; however, it does not diminish the overall impact that the alienation theory has had and continues to have with respect to promoting communism. Class and Capital Theory: As with so many of Karl Marx’s economic theories, it is of course first necessary to integrate with an interpretation and understanding of how Marx defined class and its importance with regards to accumulation of capital. Ultimately, the writings and philosophy of Karl Marx were concentric upon an understanding that human nature as necessarily developed as a means of ensuring that humans are able to derive all of the necessary requirements for life that they may have (Freeman, 2010). Not distinct from the evolutionary standpoint, Marx theory of human nature specifies that the individual, and the group for that matter, will likely seek to enrich themselves in all manners possible at all times possible (Hein, 2012). According to Marx, this is something of an innate drive that is engaged from the moment that an individual self-actualizes until the time that they die. This primary interpretation of the motivation degree provides is a primal means by which the capital accumulation theory is defined within the Marxist worldview. As might be expected, Marxist theory promotes the understanding of the fact that economic and material define the system itself. As such, capital accumulation and the means by which the workers are exploited or benefit from the wealth of material and capital helps to define this particular view. Whereas the wealth and integration of a particular action might be measured in other respects, the Marxist viewpoint seeks to analyze it from the ultimate utility that the worker is able to gain from the capital inputs that are represented throughout the system. Ultimately, the illustration of the “economic cake” is something of a symbolic approach to the means by which Karl Marx identifies and illustrates capital accumulation (Davenport, 2013). According to Marx, in order for capital to define a system, in the form of capitalism, it is required to incessantly grow and expand; as a means of ensuring that individuals within the system gain a necessary degree of benefit. Naturally, this is the idealistic description of the system that in and of itself cannot exist as defined. Due to the fact that there are finite resources and infinite needs/demands that individuals within the system place upon these finite resources, it is ultimately impossible for the accumulation of capital to continue to grow undeterred (Scott, 2013). Marx of course makes note of this necessary shortcoming of capitalist system and promotes hypothetical system of socialist/communism as a means of ameliorating these necessary drawbacks. Gender Theory and the Relevance of Feminism within the Marxist Paradigm: Lastly, the feminist perspective seeks to integrate an understanding of the fact that international relations has almost invariably been understood as a process that is dominated by male chauvinism, sexism, and a patriarchal society. Rather than integrating with a renunciation of power dynamics and/or the means through which states interact with one another, those individuals that integrate with feminist theory promote the understanding that a complete lack of research has been performed with regards to gender concerns and the means through which a feminist interpretation of international relations could ultimately provide for a completely different interpretation of key issues. Just as history, social science, anthropology, psychology, and a litany of other fields have been redefined and more completely understood by an integration within the feminist perspective, individuals that argue for a further level of integration for the feminist interpretation of international relations point to the fact that a similar explosion in understanding could be revealed by integrating with such a theoretical approach. Within the Marxist interpretation of economic theory, the capitalist approach to economic need was solely defined upon the means by which capital accumulation could be derived. Yet, there is a distinct differential with regards to the way in which men and women integrate with the workforce. Rather than having any social consciousness whatsoever, this particular approach championed the means by which capital could be created and expanded upon the needs and necessities of the given market (Porter, 2013). This expanding capital was almost invariably considered with regards to an expression of ultimate monetary value. Without delving too deeply into the role in which labor plays in deriving value, it was Marx understanding that this derivation of capital accumulation was ultimately the result of labor expenditures that took place upon the backs of the less advantaged proletariat (Pleois, 2012). Ultimately, in order for any of this at take place, the capitalist approach, according to Marx, must necessarily engender a process whereby objects of value are owned, divided, and traded. In such a way, capital accumulation has something of a double origin; both trade and expropriation. Many individuals within the modern era had utilized gender as a fundamental component of the Marxist approach. Although it is true that Karl Marx spent a great deal of time and effort discussing the importance of equality and gender, it cannot be stated to be a core of the Marxist or communist philosophy. Instead, it is nothing more than an ancillary aside to the information regarding class, capital, and issues of personhood that have already been discussed thus far within the analysis. Rather than pointing to the belief that Karl Marx was disinterested in women’s issues or the relevance of gender in determining economic power or parity, it should instead be understood that Karl Marx primary emphasis was upon engaging a revolution that would assist in dismantling the capitalist system as it existed during his own time. Moreover, the historical forces that were at play during the point in time that the Marxist theories came to be affected determined that gender issues would not factor as a primary concern or issue that Marx would promote. Relevant Interpretations: Although many of the areas that it herein been discussed are relevant with regards to a Marxist interpretation of capitalist accumulation, perhaps the most salient and important aspect that Marx discusses is with regards to the tendency the capital has to be concentrated in centralized within the hands of a few ultra rich within a given system (Weeks, 2012). Says Marx of this dynamic “It is concentration of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few large capitals.... Capital grows in one place to a huge mass in a single hand, because it has in another place been lost by many.... The battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. The cheapness of commodities demands, caeteris paribus, on the productiveness of labour, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals beat the smaller (Leon, 2012). It will further be remembered that, with the development of the capitalist mode of production, there is an increase in the minimum amount of individual capital necessary to carry on a business under its normal conditions. The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd into spheres of production which Modern Industry has only sporadically or incompletely got hold of. Here competition rages.... It always ends in the ruin of many small capitalists, whose capitals partly pass into the hands of their conquerors, partly vanish” (Marx, 2006. P. 75). According to the Marxist interpretation, capital accumulation must be very nature realize a degree of profitability. Ultimately, this profitability realized once capital has been reinvested into a particular means of production error by is able to generate profit. As a means of defining this level of profit production on capital accumulation, Marx lays out in Das Kapital what he terms as seven distinct moments. These are as follows: 1) the initial investment of capital, 2) the command over surplus labor and its appropriation, 3) the increase in value of capital through the creation/production of new units 4) the use of outputs produced by employees which contain added value 5) utilization of surplus value (profits) after deduction of all costs, 6) the creation of surplus value through sale and 7) final reinvestment of this profit into further means of production; thereby starting the cycle afresh (Jossa, 2012). However, Marx made specific mention of the fact that each of these seven processes could not be understood as a means of production alone. Rather, they are intrinsically linked to a societal/political interpretation of the means by which the economic matters are conducted. In such a way, what is being described within this particular definition of capital accumulation is with regards to a paradigm that exists and existed at the time in which Marx was performing this analysis as well as within the current era. Further contrasting the capitalist’s mode of capital accumulation as compared to the socialist’s model, which is been discussed previously, Marx draws in the analogy of primitive accumulation of capital. This primitive understanding provides the key relation of capital and necessarily refers to the degree in which the world used to see capital accumulated primarily as a means of plunder, robbery, slavery, extortion, theft, and a litany of other negative human behaviors. Although no one could argue that this aforementioned list is anything short of appalling, Marx sought point to the fact that the way in which current capital is accumulated is not altogether different. In such a way, it becomes clear and the parents to the researcher/analyst why Marx so fundamentally opposed to the capitalist dynamic. Although there many aspects of Marx understanding of capital accumulation which can be directly linked to the current system, is the belief of this author that the most salient point is with regards to the level and extent to which capital accumulation within the current model reduces the overall level of wealth that is exhibited within the system. Although this may seem as somewhat counterintuitive, the reality of the situation is that capital accumulation, by its very nature, asserts that the resources that are derived from profit do not ultimately make themselves felt within the economic environment. Rather, they are all too often times exhibited with regards to reinvestment in the process itself, or exhibited within the hands of but a few owners. Although it is not the purpose of this brief analysis to take a particular site with regards to whether or not the Marxist approach is ultimately correct or incorrect, the applicability of the Marxist dynamic to explain the means by which constriction of overall wealth is exhibited with regards to the way in which the owners and the producers interact with one another is undeniable. References Davenport, A 2013, Marxism: Condemned to a Realist fate?, European Journal Of International Relations, 19, 1, pp. 27-48, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Freeman, A 2010, Marxism without Marx: A note towards a critique, Capital & Class, 34, 1, pp. 84-97, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Chibber, V 2011, What Is Living and What Is Dead in the Marxist Theory of History, Historical Materialism, 19, 2, pp. 60-91, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Hein, E 2012, "Financialization," distribution, capital accumulation, and productivity growth in a post-Kaleckian model, Journal Of Post Keynesian Economics, 34, 3, pp. 475-496, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Jossa, B 2012, A system of self-managed firms as a new perspective on Marxism, Cambridge Journal Of Economics, 36, 4, pp. 821-841, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. León, G 2012, Civil Conflict and Human Capital Accumulation, Journal Of Human Resources, 47, 4, pp. 991-1022, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Karl Marx, 2006. Das Kapital. Edition. Synergy International of the Americas, Ltd. Pleios, G 2012, Communication and Symbolic Capitalism. Rethinking Marxist Communication Theory in the Light of the Information Society, Triplec (Cognition, Communication, Co-Operation): Open Access Journal For A Global Sustainable Information Society, 10, 2, pp. 230-252, Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Porter, S 2013, Capitalism, the state and health care in the age of austerity: a Marxist analysis, Nursing Philosophy, 14, 1, pp. 5-16, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Scott, A 2013, Capitalism as culture and statecraft: Weber–Simmel–Hirschman, Journal Of Classical Sociology, 13, 1, pp. 30-46, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Susen, S 2012, ‘Open Marxism’ against and beyond the ‘Great Enclosure’? Reflections on how (not) to crack capitalism, Journal Of Classical Sociology, 12, 2, pp. 281-331, PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Weeks, J 2012, The Theory and Empirical Credibility of Commodity Money1, Science & Society, 76, 1, pp. 66-94, Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 May 2013. Read More