Marxism: Basic Principles and Critique of International Relations

Dear learners, welcome to the Undergraduate MOOC Course on Perspectives on International

Relations and World History. I am Dr. Shveta Dhaliwal, the coordinator of this course. Till
now we have discussed theories of Realism, Neo realism, liberalism and today we are going
to discuss the theory of Marxism, The only theory named after a person. Have a look at the
structure of the lecture so that we can begin.

There are two categories of IR theories, according to Robert W. Cox. First are Problem
Solving theories and the second are Critical Theory. The problem solving theories include
realism and liberalism, while critical theories encompass a broad range of theories like
Marxism, feminism, postmodernism and post colonialism. Being status quoist, the problem-
solving theories primarily focus on analysing how the order is established and maintained in
the international system. These theories focus on explaining the status quo hence pay little
attention to change in the international system. For example, liberalism focuses on analysing
how international institutions, democracy and interdependence among actors prevent war, the
major source of change in the international system. Similarly, the realists see little prospects
of change in the international system and they believe in continuing things as they are.
However, the Marxist theory in general is a dystopian theory, which advocates change, break
way from status quo. The theory criticises Liberalism and hence capitalism.

Source: karl marx - Google Search

However, Karl Marx and his analysis of capitalism have been largely absent from the subject
matter of International Relations especially before the 1970s because in the Western world
Marxism was understood to be associated with communist states such as the USSR, China
and Vietnam, which meant it was a threat to Western capitalist states. The belief that Marx
and Engels did not develop a theory of international relations was another reason for the
exclusion of Marxism from mainstream IR. As a result, there were limited studies on
Marxism as an approach to study international relations. Nevertheless, since the 1990s, things
have improved significantly. But, the Marxist approach of world politics is not limited to the
ideas of Karl Marx. A wide range of theorists such as Vladimir Lenin, Antonio Gramsci,
Andre Gunder Frank, Robert Cox, Stephen Gill, Justin Rosenberg, Andrew Linklater and
Mark Rupert have contributed to the development of Marxist approaches.

Let us know a bit about the life of the main thinker of Marxism. Karl Marx was born in 1818,
and lived in the Rhineland region of Prussia. Both of his parents came from Jewish families.
Marx had several significant publications. “On the Jewish Question’ published in 1843, The
Holy Family in 1845, this was with Fredrich Engles,

Source: marx and engles - Google Search

who had become his new friend at that time. With Engles then he wrote a series of
manuscripts now usually known as The German Ideology in 1845–46, The Communist
Manifesto in 1848 and The Class Struggles in 1850. Volume One of Capital, published in
1867, was the only significant part of the project published in his own lifetime. Volume Two
and Volume Three of Capital were put together from Marx’s raw materials by Engels and
published in 1885 and 1894. Theories of Surplus Value which is also called as the “fourth
volume of Capital” were assembled from remaining notes by Karl Kautsky in (1854–1938).
Marx studied law and philosophy at the universities of Bonn and Berlin.

The first application of Marxist ideas to explain international processes was by communists
and revolutionaries of the early twentieth century, such as Rosa Luxemburg, Rudolf
Hilferding and Vladimir Lenin.

Source:[Link]
Lenin_CL.jpg

Lenin had written book titled Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism published in
1916, which we will discuss further in this lecture. These thinkers developed what we now
call the classical theories of imperialism to understand how capitalism expanded and adapted
to a world of inter-imperial rivalry leading to the First World War and the slow disintegration
of the European empires.

In 1974, Immanuel Wallerstein developed ‘world systems theory’ to incorporate the changes
of the late twentieth century and counter the way traditional approaches tended to understand
imperialism as a state-led process. Another influential update of the classical theories of
imperialism is the Gramscian explanation of Marxism. Antonio Gramsci’s (1891–1937)
concept of hegemony is thought by some to be more useful today than the concept of
imperialism. It sums up that capitalism dominates our social relations because it is
reproduced through coercive as well as consensual means. In fact it is better to understand
these theories in relation with each other.

As we have discussed in a separate lecture, the evolution of liberal theory could be traced
back to the Reformation movement in the 16th century and, more particularly, began with
John Locke in the seventeenth century, who believed that the right to life, liberty and
property were the natural rights; and hence the best state was that which rules the least and
protects these [Link] spirit was carried forward by John Stuart Mill, Kant and T.H.
[Link] liberal theory believed in creating a peaceful social order based on cooperation
among nation states which, was possible only by giving prominence to values like freedom,
liberty and laissez-faire policy. Later there occurred a change in liberal theory, which was
called as neo-liberalism as we discussed in another lecture. Neo-liberal theorists believed that
nation states were not the only actors in IR; individuals, groups and societal organization
were also very significant actors. Organizations like UNO, WTO, NATO, and EU achieved
great importance as they were able to promote interdependence and co-operation among
states and ensure peace. As commercial interests take place of war, states begin to cooperate.
However, Neoliberal arguments were still market oriented.

Marxist Approach Marxist Theory had a significant difference from the liberal approaches. It
helped in understanding International Relations as a correlation between politics, economy,
social forces and structures of order. The writings of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels
constituted the core ideas of this theory. Further, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse
Tung and other scholars not only developed this theory but also waged revolutions in Czarist
Russia and China.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx argued that capitalism divided people on the basis of
control over the means of production. Hence, a clash was inevitable between the capitalist
class called the bourgeoisie and workers called the proletariat; from that class struggle would
emerge a new social order which, in turn, would bring about substantial changes in the
structure of states, resulting in an altogether different world order. According to Marxists, the
hierarchical structure of the world system was the result of an expansion of world capitalism
which benefited only a few states and organizations and relegated many others to the
background. In this stage, new market-oriented states would emerge who would use coercive
forces to achieve their economic and political ends, as did happen by way of colonialism.
Further, it would bring acute disappointment in the proletariat class. These factors would
jeopardize the ideal of peace and cooperation among states. Thus, the Marxist theory
challenged the liberal theory of state promoting capitalism and protectionism.

Let me ask you a quick question.

1. Who gave the concept of “hegemony”?

A. Habermas
B. Ralph Miliband
C. Antonio Gramsci
D. Max Horkheimer
Yes, the right answer is Antonio Gramsci.

To explain Marxism in IR, we need to start with Marx’s main theory for the development of
capitalism: historical materialism. Most simply, historical materialism asserts that the
environment of human beings and their relations are determined by the material conditions in
which they can live. Therefore, Marxism asserts that material conditions can be changed by
the actions of human beings as well as by events. In other words, these material conditions
are historical and always are dependent on the processes and ideas of the previous stages. He
says the primitive society was also divided into two classes of strong and weak, where the
stronger were in less number and the weak were more in number. As society develops into a
more organised phase of monarchical regimes, it is again divided into two classes, the feudal
lords and the serfs, further the society of his times, that is the capitalist society is again
divided into two classes, the capitalist and the proletariat. In all the societies, the minority
class is the stronger since it controls the means of production, that is control over material
things. Marx believed that it would go on like this if this was not broken through a revolution.
This revolution will put an end to capitalist democracy and also will create a classless and
Statelessn society free from exploitation. He uses the idea of class struggle and the theory of
surplus value to explain how the capitalist society exploits the labor class and exploits the
weaker countries as they need more market to sell their abundant produce.

A Marxist would stress that IR is not just about states’ foreign policy or the behaviour of
politicians, but more about overall survival or let’s say it is about a person’s whole life. And
if it is so, then the separation between the political and economic, or public and private,
national or international is problematic because such categories hide the ways in which states
and foreign policies are determined by the social relations and structures of the global
economy.

Let us have a look at the assumptions of Marxism.

First, Marxists believe that IR is a complex phenomenon. It takes place in a complex and
intertwined structure. Changes in one aspect affect the functioning of other aspects. In his
book titled The Poverty of Philosophy, Karl Marx writes that “the relations of production of
every society form a whole”and Society and the culture of a state cannot be separated from its
economic system. He says the economic system is the base for every society and on this base
all other super-structures are built. A change in the base or economic factors leads to changes
in its superstructure or society and culture. Drawing from Marx, all Marxists IR theorists
believe that world politics can be better understood in totality than in sections and isolation.

Secondly, Marxism assumes that it is not the state or individual, but classes and economic
market forces that are the main actors of world politics. He prefers to use the distinction like,
North vs South, Core vs Periphery, or First World vs Third World. In the capitalist world
economy, the group of capital-rich states form bourgeoisie class while the capital poor states
form the proletariat class. The capital-rich states own the means of production while capital
poor states are deprived of it. In the capitalist world economy, the proletariat group is reduced
to supplying cheap labour and raw materials to capital rich bourgeoisie class and providing a
market of finished goods for bourgeoisie class. I am sure you must be knowing such a
relation between big fashion brands of US and their production houses in poor countries to
get cheap labor.

Thirdly, Marxism is a structuralist theory. It assumes that world politics takes place in an
environment called world system as called so by Marxist thinker Immanuel Wallerstein.
Other structural theories call this structure by different names. For example,realists call it an
international system while others prefer to call it international society. Both Marxists and
neo-realists believe in materialist construction of the structure. Neorealists emphasise that
distribution of capabilities (power) in determining the structure of the international system.
For them, the structure can be seen in terms of polarity: unipolarity, bipolarity or
multipolarity. Marxism sees structure in terms of core and periphery. They believe that
structure of the capitalist world system is determined by those who control capital and means
of production and who are is deprived of it.
Fourthly, structural theories of IR see the nature of the international system differently.
Realists and liberals assume that the nature of the international system is anarchic. Marxists
assume that the world system is conflictual, because of the conflicting interests of the rich
bourgeoisie class and capital poor least developed proletariat class. Given the difference in
interests, both classes remain in competition to get control of the capital, technology, natural
resources and market. This competition leads to conflict.

Source: marxist historical materialism - Google Search

Fifth, the Marxist approach uses historical materialism as the preferred method to explain and
understand contemporary world politics. It believed that the main concepts of IR, like state
and world order, are the result of historical development as we have discussed earlier in this
lecture.

Further, Marxist scholars and theorists have presented a significant analysis of imperialism.
Murray Noonan noticed that capitalist societies were facing three inter-related problems:
overproduction, under-consumption and over-saving. In the capitalist system, the minority
section of society that is the capitalists control the means of production and control the
majority that is the labor class by giving them meagre wages, and as a result, the capitalists
tend to over-save or hoard money. While on one side low wages result in under consumption
makes the poor even more poor, on the other hand over-saving by the capitalist class leads to
fierce competition. As the capitalist prefers to invest their surplus capital in other states which
eventually results in imperialism and imperialist wars among capitalist states in the
underdeveloped regions of the world.

Here is a quick question for you.

Who is the author of the book, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

A. Linklater

B. Lenin

C. Marx

D. None of these

Yes, the right answer is Lenin.

It is important to note here that Marx was speaking in the context of industrial society. It was
thinkers like Vladimir I. Lenin who made further marxist analyses in order to make it
applicable to non industrial societies like Russia and Asia. Lenin was also the first Marxist
thinker who explained Marxist theory of imperialism systematically in his book Imperialism:
The Highest Stage of Capitalism published in 1916. According to Lenin, imperialism starts
with economic factors, maintained and expanded through wars, and ends with the elimination
of capitalism through proletariat revolution. His theory of imperialism is based on Hobson’s
conception of how overproduction, under-consumption and over-saving compel the capitalist
class to search for market and sources of raw material abroad in other words it promoted
colonialism.

Critics of Marxist approach to international relations negate the relevance of the theory by
saying that Marxism as a theory of international relations rejects the realist and liberal views
and focuses only upon the economic and material aspects (relationships and conflicts) thus; it
is materialistic in its orientation and tends to overlook other forms of non-economic aspects
of world politics. The Marxist school of thought has been criticised on grounds of feminism,
as it over emphasizes on class as a category for analysing the events of world history and
ignoring the position of women and their role in the society. Critics have claimed that Marxist
theories of international relations are unscientific and vague as Marx’s prediction of classless
and stateless society with the replacement of capitalism by communism is a Utopian idea
which is “historically inevitable”. Also, as we observe today no Marxist State has achieved
the stateless status. Another major drawback of Marxist theory of international relations is
that it restricts society into only two classes and these classes are always in conflict which is
not always true. Apart from that it also shows undue concern about philosophical and
theoretical problems.

Source: A List of Current Communist Countries in the World ([Link])

Conclusion:

Marxism suffered a setback after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. But it paved the way
for the emergence of neo-Marxists. This new school included all dissident theories that did
not rigidly follow the conventional Marxist theory. Neo-Marxists called for a revision of
some of the elements of Marxism while retaining the core of it: class struggle as the motor
behind history. Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Antonio Gramsci, Max Horkheimer and Theodor
W. Adorno emerged as prominent neo-Marxists. One of the leading neo Marxists, Antonio
Gramsci underscored the concept of hegemony for dominance. Further, a variant of neo-
Marxism, under the title ‘Dependency Theory’ emerged with great fervour in the 20th
century extending its domain from northern states to southern [Link] we can say that
Marxism is very relevant to IR. We will discuss these theories further.

Well that’s it for today’s lecture. Hope you followed it well. We will meet soon with more
lectures on IR.

Take care and Bye for now.