Marxist Theory in International relations

The Marxist perspective is one of the most important and a lively approach to the study of
International Politics which is different from traditional theories of international relations
such as realism and neo-realism in manner; that it does not support to maintain status-quo in
the international system. Rather, it attempts to bring the radical change in the prevailing
social and political order. Furthermore, it has been emerged as a very powerful and dominant
form of social theory and has both critical and emancipator intent or aspiration. It simply
means that being a critical social theory, it not only focuses to unfold the laws and
peculiarities of capitalist globalization in terms of global inequalities, class conflicts, spheres
of power and production exploitation, alienation and estrangement but also to replace them
with a form of universal cooperation and emancipation which would promote freedom and
peace for all. Marxism as an important theory of international relations(IR), offers an
alternative understanding of „International Relations‟, particularly of the realist theorization
of international relations. Marxism as it is well known is based on the philosophical,
economic and political work of Karl Marx.

The Marxist perspective is one of the most important and a lively approach to the study of
International Politics which is different from traditional theories of international relations
such as realism and neo-realism in manner; that it does not support to maintain status-quo in
the international system. Rather, it attempts to bring the radical change in the prevailing
social and political order. Furthermore, it has been emerged as a very powerful and dominant
form of social theory and has both critical and emancipator intent or aspiration. It simply
means that being a critical social theory, it not only focuses to unfold the laws and
peculiarities of capitalist globalization in terms of global inequalities, class conflicts, spheres
of power and production exploitation, alienation and estrangement but also to replace them
with a form of universal cooperation and emancipation which would promote freedom and
peace for all. Marxism as an important theory of international relations(IR), offers an
alternative understanding of „International Relations‟, particularly of the realist theorization
of international relations. Marxism as it is well known is based on the philosophical,
economic and political work of Karl Marx.

Marxism as a body of theory has also provided us thoughtful insights of International

relations by linking it with the analysis of capitalism as an economic system. From its
inception, capitalism had an inextricable link with colonialism, domination and imperialism
therefore, for the purpose of criticizing capitalism and its effect on human lives, Marxists and
neo Marxists have developed sophisticated conceptual tools and methods to understand social
reality.

“Marx wrote that philosophers had only interpreted the world whereas the real point was to
change it” The Marxist approach to international politics focuses on totality to understand
international system. Its main objective is to bring a radical change in the working of
international system which is obsessed from war, terrorism, poverty and other kinds of
human problems.

Marxism in international relations was a reaction to liberal economic theories advanced by

thinkers such as Adam Smith. Smith argued that free market capitalism, without any role of
government or overarching actor would be the most efficient. For him, the notion of the
“invisible hand” summed up this idea: a free market without government controls will be the
most optimal outcomes. Much of Smith’s ideas of a free market economy are based on the
rules of supply and demand, and also the importance of competition. In this economic
system, businesses will compete with one another in their products, and consumers, as a
result of this competition, will benefit since it will lead businesses to make the best product at
the lowest costs. Then, the price of this product will be reflected in the supply and demand;
the more of a product that is available, the less demand that there will be, and vice versa.

Marxism challenges this notion that products are structured on supply/demand, and rather, the
focus is on the ability of a human being to make said product. This is very important for the
international relations theory of Marxism. The reason is “that markets, rather than
establishing values through supply and demand mechanisms, can be means of exploiting
people by setting the prices of goods lower than the cost of the labor required to produce
them” (Anderson, Peterson, Toops, & Key, 2015).

For Marxism in international relations theory, they examine the effects of this relationship.
Namely, they study how those in economic control use and exploit the worker (who is
making the product), and then it is the economic elites who get the vast majority of the
financial benefits from the sale of that product. Furthermore, this is not a new phenomena in
the 1800s, but rather, Marxists believe that there have been numerous cases, throughout
the centuries of imbalances of economic power between the workers, and the economic elites
who run production.

For Marx, this economic exploitation could be in the private sector, or, and as later Marxists
in the field of international relations focus on, it could be the ways that the state is using
economic power to exploit others. Marx viewed the state as a vehicle for the economically
wealthy and powerful in the country to further exploit the power, and to make themselves
richer.

To Marxism (in international relations), are many examples of economic exploitation. For
them, any place or instance that the economic elites (or the bourgeoisie) are able to
manipulate the working class, or use domestic or international political institutions, economic
institutions, or laws for their own benefit, at the expense of those making the product, is an
example of Marxism. Thus, Marxists might look at international relations and criticize
international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank for
promoting economic neoliberal policies (which advocates privatization and hands-off
government policies). Or, a Marxist might take issue with the World Trade Organization,
which, while working to reduce tariffs (so that this increases the ease of trade), fails to
provide sufficient protections (such as human rights protections) for workers, or protections
for the environment.

Other cases where Marxism and international relations may go together is when looking at
the role of multinational corporations. For many, there is a belief that multinational
corporations are able to produce products in countries where human rights standards are not
protected. Those corporations that do this do so because of the cheap labor and lack of human
rights standards in place. This will allow products to be produced very cheaply, thus
increasing profit margins, which will make the high-up in such companies even more
economically wealthy, all the while the working class is suffering. Furthermore,
the workers are often afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs, or being hurt by bosses,
by police, or punished by the state, just to give a few examples.
During the last two decades of the twentieth century, some more reflective forms of
theoretical enquiry have been noted in the field of international relations theory and critical
theory is one of them which have its origins from the work of German theorists collectively
known as Frankfurt School and originated with a critique of Marx. Critical international
relations theory is one of the major developments within the Marxist tradition, which
challenges the dominance of the realist school. Its major difference with the earlier Marxists
is its larger philosophical concerns such as epistemology, ontology and normativity within
international relations. Scholars such as Richard Ashley, Robert W. Cox, Andrew Linklater,
John Maclean, Mark Hoffman and many others were engaged with theses philosophical and
normative questions about international relationships. These normative questions have been
inspired by an interest in emancipation. Critical international relations theory hinges on
emancipator politics of various hues extending from Karl Marx to Jurgen Habermas and
seeking an inquiry into the possibilities of transforming international relations in order to
eliminate unnecessary obstacles in achieving universal freedom and equality. Critical
international relations theorists argue that international relations theory should be purposive
in the sense of providing answers to the numerous problems faced by the international
community. Critical theory in the Marxist tradition seeks some form of emancipation from
hierarchical power relations. Critical theorists argue that theories aspire not just to „tell the
truth‟ in a detached and dispassionate sort of way, but also that they necessarily serve some
purpose or interest, whether intentionally or not.

There are various criticism of the international relations theory of Marxism. One of the often
cited critiques of Marxism within international relations is Marx’s heavy attention to
economics. For many within the field, relations between countries are much more than
economic; by only focusing on domestic and international economy, one is missing the role
of politics, military, power, diplomacy, among many other issues. For critics, this theory is
too simplistic in that it tries to tie all of the world’s issues, and actor motivations on economic
interest. As Davenport notes, “The concept of the political exists as something repressed
within Marxist theorizing, something thought to be long since overcome that yet persists in
making its presence painfully felt”. So, while Marxists in international relations focus on
economics, it continues to be a challenge to dismiss politics in world affairs. 

Marxist approach to International Relations has been criticised on various grounds but it
is still a most coherent, ambitious, systematic and influential political philosophy or
approach to the world politics as it has undergone to many substantial changes in the
last few decades. We can take neo-Marxism as a starting point. Critical theory for
instance, which is Marxist in its orientation based not only on the writings of Marx and
Frederich Engels but also has roots in enlightenment period and writings of Kant and
Hegel and move beyond the concerns of classical Marxist scholars and focuses upon the
new range of questions such as politics of knowledge, culture, nature of
authoritarianism, role of power in social structures and most important emancipation in
contemporary world. Unlike classical Marxism, Critical theory not restricts itself to only
explaining the realities of world politics but criticize them also in order to transform them
by focusing upon on the paradigm of communication instead of paradigm of production
and extends conventional Marxist analysis by considering axes of exclusion other than
class and analyzing the variety of forces which shape human history.

In contrast to classical Marxism, critical theory offers an ideological critique of the

present and provides an alternative path to change, freedom and human autonomy.
Furthermore, Marxism has still a useful and important theory in order to understand the
functioning of an autonomous state in the modern societies in a much better way.
The applicability and relevance of Marxist approach could also be seen with regard to
imperialism, neo-colonialism and current globalization trends as the gap between the
rich and poor continues to widen. Apart from that it also help us to understand various of
modes of production which includes a) slave, b) feudal, c) capitalist, d) socialist and the
last is communal mode of production which is about class less and state less society.

To conclude, the Marxist approach to power and its exercise involves the following four
interests: (1) power and class domination; (2) the mediations among economic, political, and
ideological class domination; (3) the limitations and contradictions of power that are
grounded in the nature of capitalism as a system of social relations; and (4) the role of
strategy and tactics. These interests indicate both the strengths and weaknesses of the
approach. First, in privileging class domination, Marxism tends to ignore other forms of
social domination – patriarchal, ethnic, “racial,” hegemonic masculinities, inter-state,
regional or territorial, etc. At best these figure as factors that overdetermine the forms of class
domination and/or get modified by changes in class relations. Second, there is a risk of
overemphasizing the structural coherence of class domination at the expense of its
disjuncture’s, contradictions, countervailing tendencies, etc. Notions of a unified ruling
class belie the messiness of actual configurations of class power – the frictions within and
across its economic, political, and ideological dimensions, the disjunctions between
different scales of social organization, the contradictory nature and effects of strategies,
tactics, and policies, the probability of state as well as market failures, and the capacity of
subaltern forces to engage in resistance. Many concrete analyses reveal this messiness and
complexity but these qualities often go unreflected in more abstract Marxist
Theorizing. Third, Marxists risk reducing the limits of economic, political, and ideological
power to the effect of class contradictions. But there are other sources of failure too.
Finally, whilst an emphasis on strategy and tactics is important to avoid the structuralist
fallacy that capital reproduces itself quasi-automatically and without need of human
action, there is a risk of voluntarism if strategy and tactics are examined without
reference to specific conjunctures and broader structural contexts.

References:

1. Wallerstein, I. (2000), “The Rise and Future Demise of

World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative
Analysis”, in Michael Smith and Richard Little (eds),
“Perspectives on World Politics”, New York: Routledge, pp.
305-317.

2. Goldstein, J. and Pevehouse, J. (2007), “International

Relations”, New York:Pearson Longman, pp. 494-496;
500-503.
3. Buecker, R. (2003). Karl Marx’s Conception of International Relations.
Glendon Papers, 2003, pages 49-58.
4. Davenport, A. (2011). Marxism in IR: Condemned to a Realist fate?
European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 1, pages 27-48.