It would be inappropriate if we use the term ‘Marxist school of international

politics’. Because Marx considered politics as a part of superstructure hence it

is preferable to use the term ‘Marxist school of international political
economy’.

There is no contribution of Karl Marx toward the theory of international

politics as he focused his attention in the domestic sphere. Yet we see some
relevant ideas in Marx.
1] Marx did focused on expansionist nature of capitalism. In the words of
Marx ‘Search for profits take bourgeoise to settle everywhere and nestle
everywhere’.
2] Marx did not believe in nationalism and called for proletarian
internationalism. (They are in favour of globalization but not capitalist
globalization.)

Core elements if Marxism :-

1. The social world should be analysed as a totality. The academic division

of the social world into different areas of enquiry is both arbitrary and
unhelpful. None can be understood without knowledge of the others:
the social world has to be studied as a whole.
2. Another key element of Marxist thought is the materialist conception of
history. The central dynamic that Marx identifies is tension between the
means of production and relations of production that together form the
economic base of a given society. This in turn leads to a process of social
change whereby relations of production are transformed in order to
better accommodate the new configuration of means. Developments in
the economic base act as a catalyst for the broader transformation of
society as a whole.
3. Class plays a key role in Marxist analysis. Marxists hold that society is
systematically prone to class conflict. 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. 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 prevailing order and replace it with a communist
society,
 Lenin accepted Marx's basic thesis, but argued that the character of
capitalism had changed since Marx published the first volume of Capital
in 1867 Capitalism had entered a new stage--its highest and century final
stage-with the development of monopoly capitalism. Under monopoly
capitalism, a two-tier structure had developed in the world economy,
with a dominant core exploiting a less-developed periphery. With
system the development of a core and periphery, there was no longer an
automatic harmony of interests between all workers as posited by Marx.
The bourgeoisie in the core all the 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.
The prominent concepts of dependency school are (1) unequal
exchange, (2) uneven development, (3) development of
underdevelopment,  (4) core and periphery of states.
Lenin's views were taken up by the Latin American Dependency School,
adherents of which developed system, the notion of core and periphery
in greater depth.
Raúl Prebisch argued that countries in the periphery were suffering as a
result of what he called the ‘declining terms of trade’ He suggested that
the price of manufactured goods increased more rapidly than that of
raw materials. As a result of their economies' reliance on raw material
production, countries of the periphery become poorer relative to the
core. Other writers such as André Gunder Frank (1967) and Henrique
Fernando Cardoso developed this analysis further to show how the
development Of less industrialized countries was directly 'dependent on
the more advanced capitalist societies. It is from the framework
developed by such writers that contemporary world-systems theory
emerged.

World system theory is a grand sociological theory. World system theory is

analysis of the working of capitalism at global level. It is influenced by Lenin’s
ideas. It provides criticism of globalization from Marxist point of view. It gives
critique of modernization theory.

Political modernization: Refer comparative politics approaches.

Modernization theorists suggested that the path for poverty alleviation of the
developing countries is greater integration with international economy.
Dependency school scholars suggested that closer the country is integrated
with international economy, poorer it will be. e.g. The reason for poverty in
Africa and Latin American countries is linked to the working of MNCs in these
countries. Hence they suggested ‘national autonomous development’.

Salient features of Wallerstein’s theory.

Wallerstein’s theory is descriptive as well as prescriptive. It describes the
structure of international politics in the form of world system. And prescriptive
because, it suggests to shift towards socialism. According to Wallerstein, we
have only two choices either socialism or barbarianism.
1] According to Wallerstein, capitalism has become a world system. It means
expanded throughout the globe
2] Expansion of capitalism has linked the countries of the world with each
other.
3] He categorizes the countries into three groups. 1) Core 2) Peripheries and 3)
Semi-peripheries.
4] According to Wallerstein, we have seen two types of world systems. 1) Up
till 17th century – The nature of world system was political. It was centralized
(Roman empire). Peripheries used to pay the tribute to the center which was
redistributed to the peripheries by center.  2) Since 17th century – The world
system has become economic. It has become decentralized. The distribution of
goods is being done through the markets. In 17th century, it was led by
Holland (Netherlands). In 19th century by Britain and since 20th century by
USA.
5] Wallerstein described world system as ‘multicultural territorial division of
labour’ in which production and exchange of the basic goods and raw materials
necessary for day to day life takes place.
6] He has explained the world system and its features as following.
Every world system has three dimensions. 1) Spatial dimension.  2) Temporal
dimension and 3) Cultural dimension.

The spatial dimension of world system.

The spatial dimension has been explained through core, peripheries and semi-
peripheries.

Features of core countries

Concentration of power, Political power, Economic power, Ideological power,
Technological power
Peripheries
They continue to be under neo-colonialism. Drain of wealth is continuing. The
ruling class is the instrument of the capitalist of core countries.

Semi Peripheries
This is the new category added by Immanuel Wallerstein. This represents the
set of developing countries which have got some benefits in the world system.
e.g. Asian Tigers, BRICS countries. They get benefited because 1) They had
some amount of law and order. 2) Some amount of industrial base. 3) Some
amount of skilled and semi-skilled labour.
However these countries have not benefitted the other countries of periphery.
In one way, they have become the allies of core countries. It is because of
these countries that it has not been possible to achieve socialist revolution on
a global scale. They have also harmed the interest of the working classes in the
core countries. They have only benefitted the capitalist of core countries.
1) They have weakened the power of working classes in the core countries as
they provide cheap labour to the capitalists. It is one of the reasons for
unemployment in core countries. 
2) Since there is poor regulation and law and order, it was possible for the
capitalists of core countries to shift outdated technologies from core to semi-
peripheries. Thus they have offset the achievements of civil society, especially
environmental movements in the western countries.
According to Immanuel Wallerstein, semi-peripheries have become the new
elites exploiting the countries of periphery.

Temporal dimensions:
The three features of capitalism in terms of temporal dimension.
1) Cyclical rhythms – capitalism sees cycles of boom and burst. 
2) Secular trends – It reflects contradictions within capitalism. e.g. Decrease in
wages for the sake of profits decrease the purchasing power and results into
the slowdown of economy.
3) Crisis – Cyclical rhythms and secular trends ultimately lead to the collapse of
the system.

Cultural dimension
Wallerstein uses the term geo-culture. Geo-culture has two components. 
1_Science, 2_Liberalism, both features promote capitalism.
Criticism of World System School
According to critics, this model is also ‘monocausal’. An example of economic
determinism. Overemphasis on economic factors behind the happening of any
phenomenon. International politics is too complex to be explained only
through a single factor.
Post colonial scholars consider even this approach as Eurocentric i.e. based on
the experience of the western countries.
Gramscian school explanations (as given ahead) can also be used to criticise
Wallerstein’s theory.

Gramscian school

The key question that that enjoy animated Gramsci's theoretical work was:
why had it which grot proven to be so difficult to promote revolution in
Western express the Europe?
Gramsci's answer revolved around his use of the concept of hegemony, his
understanding of which reflected reciprocal his broader conceptualization of
power .

According to Gramscian tradition, it is not enough to explain international

politics by understanding the material structure alone. We have to understand
how cultural and ideological factors also play the role. e.g. In order to explain
US hegemony, we have to see not just the economic and military power of USA
but also the ideological power it utilizes. The liberal international economic
order is meant to benefit USA. However USA has been able to convince the
international community that it is in the benefit of all. When all approve liberal
international economic order, it further benefits US and builds its hegemony.

Robert Cox became famous with his statement – ‘Theory is always for
someone and for some purpose.’  He has analyzed the realist and liberal
theories to find out that ultimately these theories are written from the
perspective of which classes. Both the theories ultimately benefit the capitalist
class.

Cox contrasted problem-solving theory with critical theory. Critical theory

attempts to challenge the prevailing order by seeking out, analysing, and,
where possible, assisting social processes that can potentially lead to
emancipatory change.
Cox drew on Gramsci's notion of hegemony and transposes it to the
international realm, arguing that hegemony is as important for maintaining
stability and continuity there as it is at the domestic level. According to Cox,
successive dominant powers in the international system have shaped a world
order that suits their interests, and have done so not only as a result of their
coercive capabilities, but also because they have managed to generate broad
consent for that order, even among those who are disadvantaged by it.

Both Gramscian and critical theory have their roots in Western Europe in the
1920s and 1930s-a place and a time in which Marxism was forced to come to
terms not only with the failure of a series of attempted revolutionary uprisings,
but also with the rise of fascism.
However, contemporary critical theory and Gramscian thought about
international relations draw on the ideas of different thinkers, with differing
intellectual concerns.
. 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, is concerned
about ’emancipation of masses’.
Andrew Linklater suggests that world can be emancipated from wars only
when we make territorial boundaries irrelevant. He also suggests the
strengthening of grassroot democracy. People should be empowered enough
to put pressure on the ruling class to take responsible actions.
He suggests to strengthen moral boundaries across nations. It denotes
transnational civil society networks.

But an important element of the critical theory method is to identify-and, if

possible, to nurture-tendencies that exist in 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.Given the notorious
pessimism of the thinkers of the Frankfurt School, the guarded optimism of
Linklater in this context is indeed striking.

.
Feminist Marxists have also played a significant role in theorizing the
development of an international capitalist system. A particular concern of
feminist writers has been the role of women, both in the workplace and as the
providers of domestic labour necessary for the reproduction of capitalism. For
example, Maria Mies (1998 [1986]) argued that women play a central role in
the maintenance of capitalist relations. There is, she argues, a gendered
division of labour: first, women in the developed world working as housewives,
whose labour is unpaid but vital in maintaining and reproducing the labour
force; and second, women in the developing world as a source of cheap labour.
Women, she later argued, were the 'last colony’ , a view that can be traced
back to Rosa Luxemburg's claim regarding the role of the colonies in
international capitalism.

In conclusion, According to Marxist theorists, the globe has long been

dominated by a single integrated economic and political entity-a global
capitalist system-that has gradually incorporated all of humanity within its
grasp. In this system, all elements have always been interrelated and
interdependent. The only thing that is 'new is an increased awareness of these
linkages. 

Marxist theorists insist that the only way to discover how significant
contemporary developments really are is to view them in the context of the
deeper structural processes at work. When this is done, we may well discover
indications that important changes are afoot.

The understanding proffered by the Marxist theorists suggests that there is

nothing natural or inevitable about a world order based on a global market.
Rather than accept the inevitability of the present order, the task facing us is to
lay the foundations for a new way of organizing society--a global society that is
more just and more humane than our own. In ou world of multiple crises, Rosa
Luxemburg's observation that we have a choice between socialism or
barbarism appears more relevant than ever