Marxism (International Relations)

In this article, we shall examine Marxism in international relations. More specifically, we will discuss the assumptions and beliefs of Marxist theory in the field of international relations. We will also compare Marxism to other international relations theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism.

Marxism in International Relations

Marxism in international relations is based on the economic theory of Marxism, which arose from the thoughts of Karl Marx. Karl Marx, who was born in the year 1818 in the town of Trier (which was in Prussia, but also near France (Buecker, 2003), wrote about the use of economics and economic power in the international system.

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 (Davenport, 2011) (For more on the relationship between Marxism and realism, see the audio lecture given by Davenport (which is embedded below).

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 (which include but are not limited to dependency theory).

Marxism (International Relations) References