Marxism

International Relations today can be analysed through many theories: realism, liberalism,
neo-classicism, constructivism and many others. But one theory continues to be
overlooked, in spite of its contributions: Marxism. The theory of Marxism has been in
history since the works of Karl Marx.1 Since then, it gained and lost popularity. However,
many of its ideas continue contributing to world analysis today. In this essay, I'm going to
discuss what Marxism has to say about international relations, how it resembles and
differs from Neo-Marxism and what Neo-Marxism itself has to say about international
relations.

Marxism on international relations:

At the time of his career, globalization didn't play as big a role to each state as it does
today, ergo, Marx did not say much about international relations. However, many of his
theories that were originally applied inner-state can be applied to the international order
today. And countless Marxists did so when they took up the legacy he left behind- his
ideas on the way the world is and will be organised into the future.

Marxists had little to say about international relations which they understood to mean
relations between States.2 To them, relations between States were secondary compared to
modes of production and their laws of development.3 Class and production were thought
to be the dominant forces in society and history.4 Economy outweighed politics and
cultural phenomenon. When analysing Marxism, it's important to consider Marx's history.
Marx is born at the height of the Industrial Revolution.5 That means that his work is
influenced by what he sees in the relations between the proletariat and the bourgeoise.6
1
Wheen F., Karl Marx: A Life, New York: Norton, 2000.
2
Linklater A., 'Marxism', Ch 5, pp 129-150, in Theories of International Relations, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave, 2001.
3
Smelser N.J., Karl Marx on Society and Social Change, University of Chicago Press, 1973, p 109.
4
Linklater A., Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations, MacMillan Press, 1990.
5
Wheen F., Karl Marx: A Life, New York: Norton, 2000.
6
Marx K. and Engels F., 'The Communist Manifesto', in D. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford,
1977.

1
What he sees is a growing unequal relationship between these two classes, where the
capitalists are exploiting the labour of the working class and taking profits for
themselves. This is one of the issues that Marxists took up from Karl's legacy that they
applied to the global scale, the issue of class struggle within the economic system. This
capitalist system of production, to Marxists, was set up to serve the interests of the elite.
From that, they conceived that States were driven by the interests of the ruling class,
namely the bourgeoisie, and money was a primary interest.

It's important to understand that to Marxists, class conflict is more important than state
conflict, and today, this says a lot about the international relations. For one, it says a lot
about current global poverty and inequality. Individuals all over the world are trapped
within an international division of labour, exposed to unrestricted market forces and
exploited by new forms of factory production.7 Consider the example of Nike factories in
Indonesia. There are 40 factories altogether, with over 171,000 people working for Nike’s
huge supply line.8 The average worker earns 5,642 rupiah an hour, which equates to 50
cents here.9 The same World Cup shirt that is sold for £90 in England is sold in Indonesia
for £4. The company said it would cost £17 to make the same shirt in Europe. This
example demonstrates the social division of labour and inequality in society today. It also
coincides with the Neo-Marxist World Systems Theory of core-periphery states
exploitation, which I will discuss later in the essay.

The Nike example further supports that International Relations issues cannot be separated
from the forces of capitalism, which Marxists are strong to emphasize.10 From here, it
follows that Marxists think that capitalist globalization seriously eroded the foundations
of the international system of states.11

Whilst critiquing the capitalism effects on International Relations, Marxism also

7
Marx K., Capital, vol. 1, in D, McLellan's Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford, 1977, pg 477.
8
Rossington B., 'England's £90 World Cup shirt made by Nike's Indonesian workers earning just 30p an hour', in The
Daily Mirror, 05 April, 2014. Can be seen at:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/englands-90-world-cup-shirt-3376507
9
Ibid.
10
Linklater A., 'Marxism', Ch 5, pp 129, in Theories of International Relations, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave, 2001.
11
Ibid.

2
envisions solutions. At its core, it wants to end alienation, exploitation and estrangement
in the international community.12 It wants economic and technological unification of the
human race and the widening of the boundaries of social cooperation.13 Marx himself
thought that capitalism will act as the catalyst for a new global socialist order due to its
unsustainability and negative effects on society.14 Through revolutionary action, the
international proletariat would internalize the ideals of liberty, equality and camaraderie
in an entirely new kind of World Order, which would free all human beings from
exploitation and domination.

Similarities and differences between Marxist and Neo-Marxist approaches to

International Relations:

Marxism and Neo-Marxism are very similar. Both believe that International Relations
issues cannot be separated from issues of capitalism.15 Everything that goes on in the
world today, such as wars, foreign aid, trade, conflict, all relate to capitalism. Everything
that goes on relates to somebody's self-interest and calculations of how much capital and
power they'll be accumulating. Consider again the example of Nike's factories in
Indonesia. Nike's CEO made $35.2 million in 2012, which was then boosted by $20
million stock award.16 In this case, the accumulation on capital and power is obvious.

Both claim that capitalism is unsustainable and both think it's set up to serve the interests
of the elite. Neo-Marxists focus on counter-hegemonic forces in world society- the
various groups which oppose a form of world order which creates global inequalities and
damage to natural environment.17 Not unlike Marxists who wrote about forces that would

12
Linklater A., 'Marxism', Ch 5, pp 131, in Theories of International Relations, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave, 2001.
13
Gill S., 'Gramsci and Global Politics: Towards a Post-Hegemonic Research Agenda', in Gramsci, Historical
Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
14
Marx K. and Engels F., 'The Communist Manifesto', in D. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford,
1977.
15
Halliday F., Rethinking International Relations, London: UBC Press, 1 January 1994, p. 61.
16
Brettman A., 'Nike pay to CEO Parker totaled $35.2 million last year, boosted by $20 million stock award', in
OregonLive, July 20, 2012. Can be seen at: http://www.oregonlive.com/playbooks-
profits/index.ssf/2012/07/nike_pay_to_ceo_parker_totaled.html
17
Linklater A., 'Marxism', Ch 5, pp 129-150, in Theories of International Relations, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave,
2001.

3
bring about the transformation of current capitalist order that will eventually be replaced
by communism.

However, there are differences too. Neo-Marxism focuses a lot more on the cultural and
social aspect, rather than economic.18 In fact, this is one of the main Neo-Marxist
criticisms against Marxism, that is focuses too much on the economy. Frankfurt School
critical theorist, Jürgen Habermans, believed that Marxism overestimated the importance
of 'labour' for the structure of society and underestimated the role of 'interaction'.19
Habermans believed that universal liberty requires more than the conquest of nature and
the destruction of class inequalities. Progress in social communication and
democratisation of social, economic and political life was an overlooked ingredient by
classic Marxist thinkers.

Neo-Marxists, on the other hand, focus on the relationship between different civilizations
in the post-World Wars world order. Robert Cox, a neo-Gramscian political science
professor, who is also a critical theorist, states that "mutual recognition and mutual
understanding" is needed so that different civilisations could come to enjoy their rightful
place in a more just form of global order.20 The cultural struggle and significance is
something classic Marxists have overlooked.

Another difference is Marxism believed that a violent revolution will be necessary to

overthrow the current capitalist system, whereas Neo-Marxists thought a peaceful way is
possible through NGOs and diplomacy.21

Neo-Marxists on international relations:

Neo-Marxism takes into account geopolitical competition and war, something else
Marxists overlooked because they believed the state was a bi-product of class relations,

18
Cox R.W., 'Multilateralism and World Order', in Review of International Studies 18, 1992, pp 161-80.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Gallie W.B., Philosophers of Peace and War: Kant, Clausewitz, Marx, Engles and Tolstoy, CUP Archive, 13
September 1978.

4
which tied in with capitalism.22 Two of the leading Neo-Marxist thinkers, Gramsci and
Cox, came to a revelation that the political architecture of global capitalism maintains
inequality through a combination of coercion and consent.23 That means that the reason
capitalism worked so well in recent history is because it uses language of 'freedom and
equality', much ironically, against its own labourers, giving them just enough rewards to
keep them wanting to remain in the cycle of exploitation. This is in contrast to capitalist'
nemesis ideology, communism, which made the mistake of focusing too much on
coercion, or, use of force. Gramsci, in his days in prison, asked why communism did not
pick up in Western Europe in the early 1920's days. Marx saw his Communist solution
only working in wealthy nations.24 He specifically spoke of Germany, France and Britain.
Which is why Gramsci was surprised that it picked up in the least likely nation- Soviet
Union, which was quite poor at this time. The answer was precisely that European
capitalism used laws of consent, ergo no-body wanted change. And from here, the idea
that International Relations is running in capitalist gear because of a combination of
coercion and consent entered the Neo-Marxist thought.

From here also came the dependency theory, which analysed the organisation of the
capitalist world economy through the unequal distribution of power and wealth in world
society.25 What that means is that a relationship between the developed states and the
underdeveloped states was formed. Corporations and international banks established
dependent relationships with the elites of these countries and exploited their states for
their labour and wealth. Again, this can be related to the Nike factory example, where an
American company is using Indonesian factories to make profits. This is one way in
which Neo-Marxism views International Relations today.

Another is through Wallerstein's World-System Theory. This theory refers to the core, as

22
Linklater A., 'Marxism', Ch 5, pp 143, in Theories of International Relations, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave, 2001.
23
Cox R.W., 'Structural Issues of Global Governance: Implications for Europe', ch. 10, in S. Gill (ed.), Gramsci,
Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge, 1993.
24
Marx K. and Engels F., 'The Communist Manifesto', in D. McLellan (ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford,
1977.
25
Linklater A., 'Marxism', Ch 5, pp 143, in Theories of International Relations, 2nd edn, New York: Palgrave, 2001.

5
the rich, developed states and the periphery as the underdeveloped, poor states.26 This
theory demonstrates how close cooperation between powerful elites in core and
industrialising countries works. Once again, Neo-Marxists and Marxists alike believe this
theory is driven by forces of capitalism. Consider another statistic by the 2007 Human
Development Report:

"The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest
20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income." 27

Marxists would find it strange that 20 percent of the population accounts for such a large
portion of the world's pie. Marx would ask 'what makes these individuals so much more
productive than the rest of the world'? Did Bill Gates personally create all of his software
and technology? Or did he hire labourers to do it for him based on an idea which is a bi-
product of collective knowledge anyway. This is the kind of an exploitative relationship
Neo-Marxists focus on, but unlike classic Marxists, they apply it to States, rather than just
classes or individuals.

Conclusion:

Both Marxists and Neo-Marxists have something to say about the International Relations
today, the theories of which have resurfaced since the global financial crisis of 2008 and
the accelerated rise of financial institutions. Many Marxists and Neo-Marxists alike think
that this is the catalyst they've been waiting for, the last days of capitalism before world
socialism takes over. This essay demonstrated that Marxism and Neo-Marxism share
some disagreements, but also many agreements on International Relations. Both are
similar in their approach to world theory. They did, after all, fall from the same tree.

26
Cox R.W., 'Multilateralism and World Order', in Review of International Studies 18, 1992, pp 161-80.
27
2007 Human Development Report (HDR), United Nations Development Program, 27 November 2007, p.25.