Marxism (International Relations)

Marxism in International Relations

Marxism in international relations is based on the economic theory of Marxism, which arose from the
thoughts of Karl Marx.
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.
So, for Marxists in international relations, historical periods such as colonialism, for Marx, are periods
where notions of private property where further pushed onto societies. But this was also a time that would
lead people to fight against the colonialists, both their politics, but also their economics (Buecker, 2003).
So, Marxism clearly has a lot to say about periods of colonialism and imperialism, and have an effect
within his thoughts about economic systems in the international system. As Davenport (2011) writes:
“Certainly, as the 19th-century expectation of socialist revolution in Western Europe was confounded and
capitalist development reached further into the periphery and the non-capitalist world, imperialism theory,
in comparison with the international thought of Marx and Engels, constituted a sustained attempt to link
theoretically the dynamics of international politics to the changing structure of capital accumulation — the
theorization of imperialism as part of the dynamic of monopoly capitalism. Further, the Marxist theories of
imperialism, in expectation of the imminence of revolution, pioneered analysis of events in terms of epoch
and conjuncture, a mode of thought that, even long after the impetus of Marxism as a political movement
was exhausted, has continued to be enormously influential in Marxist thought” (28).
Thus, for Marxism (international relations), the attention is not only on how the state and also non-state
actors are carry out economic exploitation, but also how people can fight against this exploitation, and
free themselves from this control (Buecker, 2003). For Marxism, the way to do this is to abolish economic
divisions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (or the working class). He thought that this would
happen by the workers around the world rising together against the economic elites, and ridding the
society of any economic divisions. A then communist system would eventually be set up where the
notions of class would be eliminated, and everyone would be treated as equals (Buecker, 2003).
Furthermore, production would not be concentrated in one sector of society, but rather, would be
nationalized–everyone would be an equal part of this to be best of what they can do. For him, and for
Marxist theory in international relations, this would eventually lead to the elimination of the modern day
structure of the state (and of government in how we often reference it). This would be the pure form of
communism. Plus, for Marxist theory in international relations, in order to get world peace, there would
have to first be an ending of the state system (Buecker, 2003) that was established since the Treaty of
Westphalia.
Criticisms of Marxism (International Relations)
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 (2011) 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” (40). So, while Marxists in international relations focus on
economics, it continues to be a challenge to dismiss politics in world affairs.
Others still have criticized Marx’s predictions. We have not seen the classless society that Marx
envisioned on a large scale. Workers throughout the world are not abandoning all identities in their fight
for economic equality across nationalism, across borders, etc… (Buecker, 2003). Behaviors are not being
lived out the way Marx said they would, or, as some Marxist may retort, “not yet.”
Further still, some question whether what the Marxists take claim for, particularly after the Cold War
(namely, their critique of capitalist countries and the foreign policies of these states can actually be
attributed to Marxism and not another theory, such as political realism). For example, as Davenport
(2011) notes, “With the vertiginous onset of globalization at the beginning of the 1990s, followed by the
turn to a self-declaredly militarized foreign policy by the leading capitalist power and the eruption of the
world financial crisis in 2007–8, the continued relevance of the traditions of Marxist thought after the
polarizations of the Cold War and its eclipse as radical theory in the 1980s has sometimes been
enthusiastically proclaimed:4 the Communist Manifesto hailed as announcing globalization avant la lettre
and the foreign policy stance of the Bush administration evidencing, once again, the perennial necessity
of imperialist rivalry to the dynamics of capitalism. However, Marxism’s engagement with other theoretical
positions in IR during the same period revealed that the matter was more complex than a straightforward
reaffirmation of traditional Marxist categories might suggest” (29). So, for Davenport (2011), it was not as
much about what Marxism (and not other theories) says will happen economically, but rather, the Marxist
critique was a critique of liberalism/pluralism, and globalization in general, which has been a rather
frequent challenge that realists have posed to liberalists (
Conclusion
Despite the debate on the accuracy (and also criticism) of Marxist theory in international relations, it is
evident that it has left a lasting legacy with regards to questioning former economic and political theories,
and also setting the foundation for many other international relations theories