Introduction

Marxism study within the jurisdictions of international Political Economics (IPE) was to
a large extent limited to the study of the ideologies of the soviet state. This was until the collapse
of the Soviet Union in 1991 where it was referred to as the Marxism-Leninism ideology. Since
the downfall of the Soviet Union, the renaissance of the intellectual tradition regarding Marxist
international politics might be in a way paradoxical. To many, the Soviet Union downfall was
the be all and end all to emancipatory socialist projects around the world. (Anievas, 2010)
with some of the largely renown political commentators saying that what was being witnessed
was not just the completion of the cold war, but it was the end of history per se (Fukuyana,
1992). Nevertheless, the resurrection of interest in Marxism ideologies within the discipline of
IPE tracks a key efflorescence in adding knowledge to the understanding of IPE. A gap has
emerged for the revival of different forms of Marxism that are no longer a hostage to the
ideologies Soviet state or any connections therein.
This essay therefore pursues to argue an alternative way to the understanding of IPE. This
has been a major problem with conventional international politics that describes it as inadequate
eclectic combination of theoretical perspectives and analytic methods (Bieler & Morton, 2003).
It is for this reason that Marxist ideology comes in. The essay will highlight how Marxs critique
to the political economy enhances an understanding of IPE.
Structuralism is rooted in Marxist analysis though not restricted to it. It analyses the IPE
issues mostly in terms of how class interests, classes and the society in general is shaped by the
prevailing economic configurations of society. Structuralism is mostly associated with the
analysis methods employed by most sociologists. Open Marxism is Karl Marx theory used to
explain and provide an in depth analysis of Marxs political economy. To understand the
contributions of structuralism to the IPE, open Marxism argues beginning at the social
production relations. Placing importance on the examination of capital accumulation, class and
the state would bring about the separation of the market and the state as misleading, thus
expanding the inference to take into consideration as Burnham, 1994 highlights state-civil
society market relations are differentiated though not associated with the form of capitalists
social relations of production. (Burnham, 2001).
Marx asserts that the state under the capitalist system has a set of principles in the civil
society in for of religion, private property, judiciary and the family which separates them into
different classes. Consequently, there is a separation of the state and the civil society which
now become very distinctively identifiable. This encourages the mystification of the powers of
the state to the extent that group identities are condensed to individual elements (Anievas, 2010).
This results into the public and private circles being split such that the individuals are led by their
own self-interests into forming social contracts, which form the basis of the civil society while
the exploitation of class is put aside in order to give conclusive status to abstract social
responsibility (Rupert, 2007). The public thus becomes connected with individual self-rights and
private self-interests thus disabling individuals as this complicates and twists the real historical
likelihoods for social self-determination (Anievas, 2010). Individuals under the capitalist system
of governance become socially empowered to the extent of having the determination of changing
themselves and the entire world. They also start to pursue private needs and wants.
To this extent, notions like security are affirmed on the preservation of the freedoms pf
individuals and as Rupert (2007), quotes private interests within civil society separate from state
intervention (Rupert, 2007). Moreover, individuals social lives become a happening to
individuals and not a collective manner of living (Rupert, 2007). This is one way in which the
Marxist/ structuralism provides and insight to the IPE. Here, individuals are able to identify the
capitalist social interactions as universal, deterministic and natural.
The separation of economics and politics distorts the analysis of globalization and the
state. The mainstream methodologies tend to define globalization in terms of the state and the
market which results into the state losing its sovereignty in an outward connection to
globalization (Burnham, 2001), which in turn separates itself from the state. Consequently, the
disconnection of the states into national states embraces an irregular fashion together with
capital internationalization (Burnham, 2001). Open Marxism identifies the revolution of the
capital global existence as a defining aspect. Burnham (2001) asserts that it is the
contradictions of feudal and post feudal productions that brought about the revolution of both the
state form and the world market and not trade.
The state is understood to be a form of class relation that institutes the global capitalist
relations (Anievas, 2010). This means that the capitalist system is a global relation situated on
the workers struggles with the state in form of national struggle. Constant instabilities and crisis
arise as a result of production confinement, consumption control, labor commodification and
work directive struggles. According to Rupert (2007), this process is called the universalization
of capitalist social relations and an example is highlighted in the book after Bretton-Woods
system collapsed. A profitability decline and revolt in the world market, monetary elasticity
being unregulated has led to a significant increase in the world monetary reserves, 90% being
inconvertible forex and the bond market topping $33 trillion in comparison to $1 trillion in the
70s (Burnham, 2001). This is a relevant example where structuralism explains the IPE.
Another extent to which the structuralism/Marxist theory provides an insight to IPE is in
the way the theory highlights the relationship between the civil society and the state as systems
of social associations of capitalist production. Capitalism doesnt have production powers when
viewed as a thing but when viewed as a social relation capitalism becomes productive as
antagonisms reproduction, accumulation and exploitation (Anievas, 2010). This becomes the
antagonism between labor and capital (Anievas, 2010).
The state is the owner of the means of production while the public are the workers. The
characteristics of such an economy are characterized by the commodity form, specificity of
value form, capital form and money form (Rupert, 2007). It is further characterized by the
political enforcement of extraction of surplus and exploitation, appropriation of surplus and the
exploitation evidenced in the capitalist economy.
The central point of the Marxian economy is the labor theory of value and wage
exploitation. The labor power is defined as ones own ability to produce goods whose value is
superior to that of the labor power. The difference is the surplus value. Positioning the individual
as a worker, stripped of all her qualities subjects her to a condition that separates labor from her,
as the capitalists encounter of the weak and poor worker as an abstract worker which
presupposes a historic process (Burnham, 2001). Marx later argues that people constitute the
state and the socially existence of individuals within the state comprises their relation and
participation of the state. This then begs the question as to what is really peculiar of the social
relations under capitalist production that brings about the constitution and separation of the
state and the market as separate within the same social relations (Rupert, 2007).




Conclusion
The Marxist/ structuralism approach desists from creating an association between the
state and the market; instead it views the state as fetishized while the market is viewed as a
technical ground where the external forces of the state intervene. By reading Marxist ideology
and critique of the political economy with an open and critical mind, the IPE is understood
comprehensively.
The struggle between classes of labor and capital where capital and means of production
lies with the state while labor lies with the expatriates, produces some crisis levels manifested at
the state level as low productivity, crisis in balance of payments and fiscal crisis(Bieler &
Morton, 2003). The capitalists social relations make sure that these crises are endemic, thus
dynamic throughout the social world. National states which are a form of capitalist social
relations are not merely affected by globalization (Bieler & Morton, 2003). but are a part of the
crisis. The bad blood between capital and labor has continued with the new level of intensity and
instability in terms of the reorganization of the global political framework since the downfall of
the Bretton Woods in the 1970s (Burnham, 2001).
The Structuralism/ Marxist ideology has achieved a significant accomplishment by
highlighting the components of categories through and in the growth of a social world ridden by
crises. This has been specifically seen in the examination of the state as a part of worldwide
production social relations.





REFERENCES
Anievas, A. (2010). Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism. London:
Routledge.
Bieler, A. & Morton, A. (2003). Globalization, the state and class struggle: a Critical Economy
engagement with Open Marxism. The British Journal of Politics & International
Relations, 5(4), 467-499.
Burnham, P. (2001). Marx, International Political Economy and Globalization. Capital & Class,
25 (3), 103-112.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamish Hamilton.
Rupert, M. (2007). Marxism and critical theory. International relations theories: Discipline and
diversity, 148-165.