International Relations
Asad Raza Talpur
Sukkur IBA University
Marxism
For much of the twentieth
century, socialism was the
primary radical alternative to
mainstream international
relations theorizing.
Whereas realists emphasize state
security, liberals accentuate individual
freedom, and constructivists highlight
ideas and identities, socialists focus on
class conflict and the material
interests of each class.
Socialism envisions society as
optimally characterized by public
ownership and control of
property and resources, to the
benefit of individuals living in
concert with one another.
Karl Marx, however, is widely
viewed as the most prominent theorist
of socialism. He argued that socialism
emerges through the clash
of social classes as opposed to the
establishment of harmonious
communities.
“The history of all
hitherto existing
society is the history
of class struggles.”
Though Marx saw capitalism as a historically
progressive force for economic development that
made possible the industrial revolution, he argued
that it was also highly exploitative and gave rise
to two antagonistic classes: a ruling class
(bourgeoisie) that owns the means of production
and a subordinate class (proletariat)
that sells its labor for only a token compensation.
Instead, Marxism holds that the
ruling class controls and
benefits disproportionately
from the surplus value
generated by the subordinate
working class’s labor.
Through the labor of workers, raw materials
are transformed into products of greater
value. Yet workers lack bargaining power and
tend to receive a fixed wage for their labor
irrespective of the value added, while the
owners of companies unfairly reap a greater
portion of surplus value as realized through
increased profits.
Marxism anticipates that class struggle will result,
sometimes through violent rebellion, wherein
the oppressed working class seeks power and a
greater share of wealth. Marxism has had
considerable influence in countries in the Global
South where there is pronounced
inequality and workers endure harsh labor
conditions and low wages.
Although Marx’s theory of economic
exploitation focused on domestic class
struggle, the antagonistic relationship
between classes plays a key role in
determining the characteristics of
international relations.
In Marxism, human nature per se is not treated
as a given or as a primary determinant of
international relations, but is rather seen as
“shaped by interaction with
others and with the environment”. This
interaction creates a predatory
international system with the core states
benefiting from the subjugation of peripheral
states
According to Marx, “The need of a
constantly expanding market for its
products chases the bourgeoisie over
the whole surface of the globe.” By
expanding worldwide, the
bourgeoisie give “a cosmopolitan
character to production and
consumption in every country.”
Building on these ideas, Vladimir Lenin
in the Soviet Union extended Marx’s
analysis to the study of imperialism,
which he interpreted as a stage in the
development of capitalism when
monopolies overtake free-market
competition.
Lenin maintained that advanced
capitalist states eventually face the twin
problems of overproduction and under
consumption. They respond by waging
wars to divide the world into spheres of
influence, forcing these new foreign
markets to consume the surplus goods
and capital.
The socialist attention to social
classes and uneven development
stimulated several new waves
of theorizing about capitalism as a
global phenomenon.
One prominent example is
Dependency Theory. Dependency
theorists claimed that much of the
poverty in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America stemmed from the
exploitative capitalist world
economy.
As they saw it, the economies of less
developed countries had become
dependent on exporting inexpensive
raw materials and agricultural
commodities to advanced industrial
states, while simultaneously importing
expensive manufactured goods from
them.
World-system theory, which
was influenced by both Marxist
and dependency theorists,
interprets world politics in
terms of an integrated division
of labor within an overarching
capitalist world economy.
The capitalist world economy, which emerged in sixteenth
century Europe and ultimately expanded to encompass the
entire globe, is hierarchical in structure with states occupying
one of three positions: CORE (strong, well-integrated states
whose economic activities are diversified and centered on
possession and use of capital), PERIPHERY (areas lacking
strong state machinery and engaged in producing relatively
few unfinished goods by unskilled, low wage labor), or SEMI-
PERIPHERY (states embodying elements of both core and
peripheral production)
Within the world economy as a
whole, the advantages held by core
states are perpetuated through the
continual accumulation of capital
within the core from the periphery
and semi-periphery.
Within the core, a state may gain economic
primacy by achieving productive, commercial,
and financial superiority over its rivals. Yet
primacy is difficult to sustain. The diffusion of
technological innovations and the flow of capital
to competitors, plus the massive costs of
maintaining global order, all erode the dominant
state’s economic advantage.
Thus, in addition to underscoring
the exploitation of the periphery by
the core, world-system theory calls
attention to the cyclical rise and fall
of hegemonic superpowers at
the top of the core hierarchy.
With the end of the Cold War,
and the concomitant failures of
the Soviet regime, there are
fewer advocates today for
organizing society along Marxist
principles.
Yet these various radical challenges to
mainstream theorizing continue to
enhance our understanding of world
politics by highlighting the roles played
by corporations, transnational religious
movements, and other
nonstate actors.
Some critics of Marxism have also
accused it of partaking in the
theoretical simplification that it had
sought to overcome and leaving key
political ideas, such as revolutionary
social change, ambiguous.
Questions/Comments
