Marxist theories of international relations

MARXISM/ historical materialism

● Marxism by Karl Marx
● Lenin imperialism
● gramscism
● Wallerstein world system theory

the continuing relevance of Marxism

1. First, for many Marxists the communist experiment in the Soviet Union had become a
major embarrassment.The break-up of the Soviet bloc has, in a sense, wiped the slate
clean. This event reopened the possibility of being able to argue in favour of Marx’s
ideas without having to defend the actions of Marxism-Leninism as a state ideology.
2. Second, Marx’s social theory and his analysis of capitalism with the ever-increasing
penetration of the market mechanism into all aspects of life, extraordinary dynamism and
the inherent contradictions of capitalism are even more relevant now than in his own
time. A particular strength of Marx’s work is his analysis of the crisis.

Marxism
By Karl marx
The essential elements of Marxist theories of world politics
Karl Marx’s ideological interpretation of world highlights the exploitative mechanism operating in
the world
1-the social world should be analyzed as a totality.
The academic division of the social world into different areas of inquiry—history, philosophy,
economics, political science, sociology, international relations, etc.—is both arbitrary and
unhelpful. None can be understood without knowledge of the others: the social world had to be
studied as a whole.
2-materialist conception of history.
The central contention here is that processes of historical change are ultimately a reflection of
the economic development of society. That is, economic development is effectively the motor of
history. The central dynamic that Marx identifies is tension between the means of production
(labour in agriculture and industry) and relations of production (elite that owns means of
production ) that together form the economic base of a given society.

Marx argues in the Preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, ‘the mode of
production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general’
Thus the legal, political, and cultural institutions and practices of a given society reflect and
reinforce—in a more or less mediated form—the pattern of power and control in the economy.
It follows logically, therefore, that change in the economic base ultimately leads to change in the
‘legal and political superstructure
3- role of class in society
Marxists hold that society is systematically prone to class conflict. Indeed, in the Communist
Manifesto, which Marx co-authored with Engels, it is argued that ‘the history of all hitherto
existing societies is the history of class struggle’.In capitalist society, the main axis of conflict is
between the bourgeoisie (the capitalist) and the proletariat (the workers).

4- overthrowing the prevailing order

Marx did not think it either possible or desirable for the analyst to remain a detached or neutral
observer of this great clash between capital and labour. He argued that ‘philosophers have only
interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it’ Marx was committed to
the cause of emancipation. He was not interested in developing an understanding of the
dynamics of capitalist society simply for the sake of it. Rather, he expected such an
understanding to make it easier to overthrow the prevailing order and replace it with a
communist society—a society in which wage labour and private property are abolished and
social relations transformed.

Lenin imperialism
By Vladimir Lenin
Vladimir Lenin was the first person to apply Marx's theoretical framework in real life.
According to Lenin Marx prediction that emancipation will happen in most advanced industrial
states of western Europe did not happen because in 20th century the elite of Europe in now
exploiting colonised states of east and emancipation will only occur where exploitation is high
Hence the conception of exploitation I.e capitalism has changed from 19th to 20th century
A pamphlet written by Lenin, and published in 1917, called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism. Lenin accepted much of Marx’s basic thesis, but argued that the character of
capitalism had changed since Marx published the first volume of Capital in 1867 (Marx 1992).
Capitalism had entered a new stage—its highest and final stage—with the development of
monopoly capitalism. Under monopoly capitalism, a two-tier structure had developed within the
world-economy with a dominant core exploiting a less-developed periphery. With the
development of a core and periphery, there was no longer an automatic harmony of interests
between all workers. The bourgeoisie in the core countries could use profits derived from
exploiting the periphery to improve the lot of their own proletariat. In other words, the capitalists
of the core could pacify their own working class through the further exploitation of the periphery.
Lenin’s views were developed by the Latin American Dependency School,

Hence In the nation state system peace in the world is only possible through global communism
that will end the class difference between core and periphery.

Gramscianism
By Antonio Gramsci
Gramsci’s work has become particularly influential in the study of International Political
Economy, where a neo-Gramscian or ‘Italian’ school is flourishing.
The key question which animated Gramsci’s theoretical work was why had it proven to be so
difficult to promote revolution in Western Europe?
Marx, after all, had predicted that revolution, and the transition to socialism, would occur first in
the most advanced capitalist society, But, in the event, it was the Bolsheviks of comparatively
backward Russia that had made the first ‘breakthrough’, while all the subsequent revolutions in
Western and Central Europe to had failed.
The history of the early twentieth century seemed to suggest, therefore, that there was a flaw in
classic Marxist analysis. But where had they gone wrong?

Gramsci’s answer revolves around his use of the concept of hegemony.

For Gramsci, hegemony reflects his conceptualization of power. He develops Machiavelli’s view
of power: a mixture of coercion and consent.
1- coercion:In understanding how the prevailing order was maintained, Marxists had
concentrated almost exclusively on the coercive practices and capabilities of the state. On this
understanding, it was simply coercion, or the fear of coercion, that kept the exploited and
alienated majority in society from rising up and overthrowing the system that was the cause of
their suffering.
Gramsci recognized that while this characterization may have held true in less developed
societies, such as pre-revolutionary Russia, it was not the case in the more developed countries
of the West. Here the system was also maintained through consent.
2- consent:Consent, on Gramsci’s reading, is created and re-created by the hegemony of the
ruling class in society. It is this hegemony that allows the moral, political, and cultural values of
the dominant group to become widely dispersed throughout society and to be accepted by
subordinate groups and classes as their own. This takes place through the institutions of civil
society: the network of institutions and practices that enjoy some autonomy from the state, and
through which groups and individuals organize, represent, and express themselves to each
other and to the state (for example, the media, the education system, churches, voluntary
organizations, etc.).

Hence,Marxist theory needs to take superstructural phenomena seriously, because while the
structure of society may ultimately be a reflection of social relations of production in the
economic base, the nature of relations in the superstructure are of great relevance in
determining how susceptible that society is to change and transformation.
Gramsci used the term historic bloc to describe the mutually reinforcing and reciprocal
relationships between the socioeconomic relations (base) and political and cultural practices
(superstructure) that together underpin a given order.
It is the interaction that matters.
Another crucial implication is for political practice. If the hegemony of the ruling class is a key
element in the perpetuation of its dominance, then society can only be transformed if that
hegemonic position is successfully challenged. This entails a counter-hegemonic struggle in civil
society, in
which the prevailing hegemony is undermined, allowing an alternative historic bloc to be
constructed

In short, Gramsci shifted the focus of Marxist analysis more towards superstructural
phenomena. In
particular, he explored the processes by which consent for a particular social and poitical
system was produced and reproduced and through the operation of hegemony. Hegemony
allows the ideas and ideologies of the ruling stratum to become widely dispersed, and widely
accepted, throughout society.

World system theory

By Immanuel wallerstein
For Wallerstein, history has been marked by the rise and demise of a series of world-systems.
The modern world-system emerged in Europe at around the turn of the sixteenth century. It
subsequently expanded to encompass the entire globe. The driving force behind this seemingly
relentless process of expansion and incorporation has been capitalism, defined by Wallerstein
as ‘a system of production for sale in a market for profit and appropriation of this profit on the
basis of individual or collective ownership’. Within the context of this system, all the institutions
of the social world are continually being created and re- created.
Furthermore, and crucially, it is not only the elements within the system which change. The
system itself is historically bounded. It had a beginning, has a middle, and will have an end
3 geographical zones according to wallerstein
In terms of the geography of the modern world-system, in addition to a core-periphery
distinction, Wallerstein added an intermediate semi-periphery.
According to Wallerstein, the semi-peripheral zone has an intermediate role within the
world-system displaying certain features characteristic of the core and others characteristic of
the periphery. Although dominated by core economic interests, the semi-periphery has its own
relatively vibrant indigenously owned industrial base. Because of this hybrid nature, the
semi-periphery plays important economic and political roles within the modern world-system. In
particular, it provides a source of labour that counteracts any upward pressure on wages in the
core and also provides a new home for those industries that can no longer function profitably in
the core (for example, car assembly and textiles). The semi-periphery also plays a vital role in
stabilizing the political structure of the world-system.
According to world-system theorists, the three zones of the world-economy are linked together
in an exploitative relationship in which wealth is drained away from the periphery to the centre.
As a consequence, the relative positions of the zones become ever more deeply entrenched:
the rich get richer while the poor become poorer.
Together, the core, semi-periphery, and periphery make up the geographic dimension of the
world- economy. However, described in isolation they provide a rather static portrayal of the
world-system

temporal dimensions of Wallerstein’s description of the world-economy These are cyclical

rhythms, secular trends, contradictions, and crisis. It is these, when combined with the spatial
dimensions, which determine the historical trajectory of the system
Interrelationships in the world-economy

According to Wallerstein previously resources were controlled by rulers elites but now the
capitalist market monopolises and exploits resources and people. So I’m contemporary context
emancipation is only possible if this capitalist market is replaced which can only be done when
the market halts and collapses.but due to the cyclic rhythms in the capitalist market and
financial support of organisations like IMF, the capitalist system of socioeconomics can not be
replace. As seen in case of Greece bankruptcy in 2015 post euro zone debt crisis where imf
gave Greece 33% loan rebate and foreign euro aid from Germany as well.
Hence debt in capitalism is a form of barter that can make states superior to one another.
Temporal features
1-cyclical rhythms, is concerned with the tendency of the capitalist world-economy to go
through recurrent periods of expansion and subsequent contraction, or more colloquially, boom
and bust.
2-Secular trends refer to the long-term growth or contraction of the world- economy.
3-contradictions. These arise because of ‘constraints imposed by systemic structures which
make one set of behavior optimal for actors in the short run and a different, even opposite, set of
behavior optimal for the same actors in the middle run’.
For Wallerstein, one of the central contradictions is ‘under-consumption’ . This refers to the
situation where it is in the interests of capitalists to have well-paid workers so that they can
consume the items that they produce. It is also in their interest to reduce wage levels in order to
increase profitability. In practice it is not possible to fulfil both of these aims. The pressure of the
capitalist system means that, to remain profitable, capitalists seek to reduce wages—though this
also reduces consumption. Contradictions in the world-economy arise from the fact that the
structure of the system can mean that apparently sensible actions by individuals can, in
combination or over time, result in very different—and possibly unwelcome—outcomes from the
ones originally intended.
4-‘crisis’ to refer to a very specific temporal occurrence. Crisis constitutes a unique set of
circumstances that can only be manifested once in the lifetime of a world-system. It occurs
when the contradictions, secular trends, and cyclical rhythms combine in such a way as to mean
that the system cannot continue to reproduce itself. Thus, a crisis within a particular
world-system heralds its end and replacement by another system.

According to Wallerstein, US imperialism is in its terminal phase as depicted by increased

military adventures and its capitalistic decline in the global market.

Critical theory
Gramsci tending to be much more concerned with issues relating to the subfield of international
political economy than critical theorists
Critical theorists, on the other hand, have involved themselves with questions concerning
international society, international ethics, and security.

Critical theory developed out of the work of the Frankfurt School.The leading lights of the first
generation of the Frankfurt School included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert
Marcuse. A subsequent generation has taken up the legacy of these thinkers and developed it
in important and innovative ways. The best known is Jürgen Habermas.
1-focus of critical theory is almost entirely superstructural.critical theorists have focused on
concentrated on questions relating to culture, bureaucracy, the social basis and nature of
authoritarianism, the structure of the family, and on exploring such concepts as reason and
rationality as well as theories of knowledge. Frankfurt School theorists have been particularly
innovative in terms of their analysis of the role of the media, and what they have famously
termed the ‘culture industry
2-critical theorists have been highly dubious as to whether the proletariat in contemporary
society does in fact embody the potential for emancipatory transformation in the way that Marx
had believed. Rather, with the rise of mass culture and the increasing commodification of every
element of social life, Frankfurt School thinkers have argued that the working class has simply
been absorbed by the system and no longer represents a threat to it. This, to use Marcuse’s
famous phrase, is a one-dimensional society to which the vast majority simply cannot begin to
conceive an alternative.
3-critical theorists have made some of their most important contributions through their
explorations of the meaning of emancipation. Marxists have equated emancipation with the
process of humanity gaining ever greater mastery over nature through the development of ever
more sophisticated technology, and its use for the benefit of all. But early critical theorists
argued that humanity’s increased domination over nature had been bought at too high a price,
claiming that the kind of mind-set that is required for conquering nature slips all too easily into
the domination of other human beings. In contrast, they argued that emancipation had to be
conceived in terms of a reconciliation with nature

Habermas’s understanding of emancipation, is more concerned with communication than with

our relationship with the natural world. Setting aside the various twists and turns of his
argument, Habermas’s central political point is that the route to emancipation lies through
radical democracy.
That is, it is through a system in which the widest possible participation is encouraged not only
in word (as is the case in many Western democracies) but also in deed, by actively identifying
barriers to participation—be they social, economic, or cultural—and overcoming them. For
Habermas and his many followers, participation is not to be confined within the borders of a
particular sovereign state. Rights and obligations extend beyond state frontiers.

Andrew Linklater has used some of the key principles and precepts developed in Habermas’s
work in order to argue that emancipation in the realm of international relations should be
understood in terms of the expansion of the moral boundaries of a political community
In other words, he equates emancipation with a process in which the borders of the sovereign
state lose their ethical and moral significance. At present, state borders denote the furthest
extent of our sense of duty and obligation, or at best, the point where our sense of duty and
obligation is radically transformed, only proceeding further in a very attenuated form. For critical
theorists, this situation is simply indefensible. The goal is therefore to move towards a situation
in which citizens share the same duties and obligations towards non-citizens as they do towards
their fellow citizens.
● State that was supposed to ensure security (according to functionalist, contractual and
idealist theory) is the reason of issues
● Need to decrease barriers of state boundaries and increase free movement
To arrive at such a situation would, of course, entail a wholesale transformation of the present
institutions of governance. But an important element of the critical theory method is to
identify—and, if possible, nurture—tendencies that exist within the present conjuncture that
point in the direction of emancipation. On this basis, Linklater identifies the development of the
European Union as representing a progressive or emancipatory tendency in contemporary
world politics. If true, this suggests that an important part of the international system is entering
an era in which the sovereign state, which has for so long claimed an exclusive hold on its
citizens, is beginning to lose some of its pre-eminence.
 Critical Security Studies
Critical Security Studies (CSS) is the name given to a trend in the study of security issues that
has gained prominence in recent years (in particular through the work of Keith Krause and Mike
Williams (1997), Ken Booth (1991, 2004) and Richard Wyn Jones (1995, 1999). CSS combines
influences from Gramscianism and critical theory with aspects of peace research and the
so-called ‘alternative defence thinking’. In contrast to much mainstream security thinking (in the
West at least), CSS refuses to accept the state as the ‘natural’ object of analysis, arguing that,
for much of the world’s population, states are part of the security problem rather than a provider
of security. Instead, proponents of CSS tend to argue that it is beholden on security analysts to
place individual human beings at the centre of their analysis. Like Linklater, they regard their
work as supporting and nurturing emancipatory tendencies, for it is only through emancipation
that security can ultimately be assured.

Dependency theory
Q- why and how 3rd world countries are still dependent on the west?
A-
1. Marxist interpretation
Wallerstein -world system theory
Andre gunder frank-critique system
2. Liberal interpretation
Raul prebisch
3. Structural interpretation
Henrique cardoso

Dependency Theory developed in the late 1950s under the guidance of, Raul Prebisch
Prebisch and his colleagues were troubled by the fact that economic growth in the advanced
industrialized countries did not necessarily lead to growth in the poorer countries. Indeed, their
studies suggested that economic activity in the richer countries often led to serious economic
problems in the poorer countries.

Prebisch's initial explanation for the phenomenon was very straightforward: poor countries
exported primary commodities to the rich countries who then manufactured products out of
those commodities and sold them back to the poorer countries. The "Value Added" by
manufacturing a usable product always cost more than the primary products used to create
those products. Therefore, poorer countries would never be earning enough from their export
earnings to pay for their imports.

Prebisch's solution was similarly straightforward: poorer countries should embark on programs
of import substitution so that they need not purchase the manufactured products from the richer
countries. The poorer countries would still sell their primary products on the world market, but
their foreign exchange reserves would not be used to purchase their manufactures from abroad.
Three issues made this policy difficult to follow.
The first is that the internal markets of the poorer countries were not large enough to support
the economies of scale used by the richer countries to keep their prices low.
The second issue concerned the political will of the poorer countries as to whether a
transformation from being primary products producers was possible or desirable.
The final issue revolved around the extent to which the poorer countries actually had control of
their primary products, particularly in the area of selling those products abroad.

The debates among the liberal reformers (Prebisch), the Marxists (Andre Gunder Frank), and
the world systems theorists (Wallerstein) was vigorous and intellectually quite challenging.
There are still points of serious disagreements among the various strains of dependency
theorists and it is a mistake to think that there is only one unified theory of dependency.
Nonetheless, there are some core propositions which seem to underlie the analyses of most
dependency theorists.

There are three common features to these definitions which most dependency theorists
share.
First, dependency characterizes the international system as comprised of two sets of states,
variously described as dominant/dependent, center/periphery or metropolitan/satellite. The
dominant states are the advanced industiral nations in the Organization of Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD). The dependent states are those states of Latin
America, Asia, and Africa which have low per capita GNPs and which rely heavily on the export
of a single commodity for foreign exchange earnings.

Second, both definitions have in common the assumption that external forces are of singular
importance to the economic activities within the dependent states. These external forces include
multinational corporations, international commodity markets, foreign assistance,
communications, and any other means by which the advanced industrialized countries can
represent their economic interests abroad.

Third, the definitions of dependency all indicate that the relations between dominant and
dependent states are dynamic because the interactions between the two sets of states tend to
not only reinforce but also intensify the unequal patterns. Moreover, dependency is a very
deep-seated historical process, rooted in the internationalization of capitalism. Dependency is
an ongoing process:

The Central Propositions of Dependency Theory

There are a number of propositions, all of which are contestable, which form the core of
dependency theory. These propositions include:

1. Underdevelopment is a condition fundamentally different from undevelopment. The latter term

simply refers to a condition in which resources are not being used. For example, the European
colonists viewed the North American continent as an undeveloped area: the land was not
actively cultivated on a scale consistent with its potential. Underdevelopment refers to a
situation in which resources are being actively used, but used in a way which benefits dominant
states and not the poorer states in which the resources are found.

2. The distinction between underdevelopment and undevelopment places the poorer countries
of the world is a profoundly different historical context. These countries are not "behind" or
"catching up" to the richer countries of the world. They are not poor because they lagged behind
the scientific transformations or the Enlightenment values of the European states. They are poor
because they were coercively integrated into the European economic system only as producers
of raw materials or to serve as repositories of cheap labor, and were denied the opportunity to
market their resources in any way that competed with dominant states.

3. Dependency theory suggests that alternative uses of resources are preferable to the resource
usage patterns imposed by dominant states. There is no clear definition of what these preferred
patterns might be, but some criteria are invoked. For example, one of the dominant state
practices most often criticized by dependency theorists is export agriculture. The criticism is that
many poor economies experience rather high rates of malnutrition even though they produce
great amounts of food for export. Many dependency theorists would argue that those
agricultural lands should be used for domestic food production in order to reduce the rates of
malnutrition.

4. The preceding proposition can be amplified: dependency theorists rely upon a belief that
there exists a clear "national" economic interest which can and should be articulated for each
country. In this respect, dependency theory actually shares a similar theoretical concern with
realism. What distinguishes the dependency perspective is that its proponents believe that this
national interest can only be satisfied by addressing the needs of the poor within a society,
rather than through the satisfaction of corporate or governmental needs. Trying to determine
what is "best" for the poor is a difficult analytical problem over the long run. Dependency
theorists have not yet articulated an operational definition of the national economic interest.

5. The diversion of resources over time (and one must remember that dependent relationships
have persisted since the European expansion beginning in the fifteenth century) is maintained
not only by the power of dominant states, but also through the power of elites in the dependent
states. Dependency theorists argue that these elites maintain a dependent relationship because
their own private interests coincide with the interests of the dominant states. These elites are
typically trained in the dominant states and share similar values and culture with the elites in
dominant states. Thus, in a very real sense, a dependency relationship is a "voluntary"
relationship. One need not argue that the elites in a dependent state are consciously betraying
the interests of their poor; the elites sincerely believe that the key to economic development lies
in following the prescriptions of liberal economic doctrine.

The Policy Implications of Dependency Analysis

If one accepts the analysis of dependency theory, then the questions of how poor economies
develop become quite different from the traditional questions concerning comparative
advantage, capital accumulation, and import/export strategies. Some of the most important new
issues include:

1. The success of the advanced industrial economies does not serve as a model for the
currently developing economies. When economic development became a focused area of study,
the analytical strategy (and ideological preference) was quite clear: all nations need to emulate
the patterns used by the rich countries. Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s there was a
paradigmatic consensus that growth strategies were universally applicable, a consensus best
articulated by Walt Rostow in his book, The Stages of Economic Growth. Dependency theory
suggests that the success of the richer countries was a highly contingent and specific episode in
global economic history, one dominated by the highly exploitative colonial relationships of the
European powers. A repeat of those relationships is not now highly likely for the poor countries
of the world.

2. Dependency theory rejects the central distributive mechanism of the neoclassical model,
what is usually called "trickle-down" economics. The neoclassical model of economic growth
pays relatively little attention to the question of distribution of wealth. Its primary concern is on
efficient production and assumes that the market will allocate the rewards of efficient production
in a rational and unbiased manner. This assumption may be valid for a well-integrated,
economically fluid economy where people can quickly adjust to economic changes and where
consumption patterns are not distorted by non-economic forces such as racial, ethnic, or gender
bias. These conditions are not pervasive in the developing economies, and dependency
theorists argue that economic activity is not easily disseminated in poor economies. For these
structural reasons, dependency theorists argue that the market alone is not a sufficient
distributive mechanism.

3. Since the market only rewards productivity, dependency theorists discount aggregate
measures of economic growth such as the GDP or trade indices. Dependency theorists do not
deny that economic activity occurs within a dependent state. They do make a very important
distinction, however, between economic growth and economic development. For example, there
is a greater concern within the dependency framework for whether the economic activity is
actually benefitting the nation as a whole. Therefore, far greater attention is paid to indices such
as life expectancy, literacy, infant mortality, education, and the like. Dependency theorists clearly
emphasize social indicators far more than economic indicators.

4. Dependent states, therefore, should attempt to pursue policies of self-reliance. Contrary to

the neo-classical models endorsed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank,
greater integration into the global economy is not necessarily a good choice for poor countries.
Often this policy perspective is viewed as an endorsement of a policy of autarky, and there have
been some experiments with such a policy such as China's Great Leap Forward or Tanzania's
policy of Ujamaa. The failures of these policies are clear, and the failures suggest that autarky
(economic interdependence) is not a good choice. Rather a policy of self-reliance should be
interpreted as endorsing a policy of controlled interactions with the world economy: poor
countries should only endorse interactions on terms that promise to improve the social and
economic welfare of the larger citizenry.