Chapter 8
Marxist
theories of international relations
By
Stephen Hobden, Richard Wyn Jones
Introduction: the continuing relevance of
Marxism
The essential elements of Marxist theories
of world politics
Marx internationalized: from imperialism
to world-systems theory
Gramscianism
Critical theory
New Marxism
Conclusion: Marxist theories of
international relations and globalization
Reader's Guide
This chapter will introduce, outline, and
assess the Marxist contribution to the study of international relations.
Having identified a number of core features common to Marxist approaches, the
chapter discusses how Marx's ideas were internationalized by Lenin and subsequently
by writers in the world-system framework. It then examines how Frankfurt School
critical theory, and Gramsci and his various followers, introduced an analysis
of culture into Marxist analysis, and how, more recently new (or orthodox)
Marxists have sought a more profound re-engagement with Marx's original
writings. The chapter argues that no analysis of globalization is complete
without an input from Marxist theory. Indeed, Marx was arguably the first
theorist of globalization, and from the perspective of Marxism, the features
often pointed to as evidence of globalization are hardly novel, but are rather
the modern manifestations of long-term tendencies in the development of
capitalism.
Introduction
With the end of the cold war and
the global triumph of ‘free market’ capitalism, it became commonplace to assume
that the ideas of Marx and his numerous disciples could be safely consigned to
the dustbin of history. The ‘great experiment’ had failed. While Communist
Parties retained power in China, Vietnam, and Cuba, they did not now constitute a threat to the
hegemony of the global capitalist system. Rather, in order to try to retain power,
these parties were themselves being forced to submit to the apparently
unassailable logic of ‘the market’ by aping many of the central features of
contemporary capitalist societies. One of the key lessons of the twentieth
century, therefore, would appear to be that Marxist thought leads only to a
historical dead end. The future is liberal and capitalist.
Yet, despite this, Marx and Marxist
thought more generally refuse to go away. The end of the Soviet experiment and
the apparent lack of a credible alternative to capitalism may have led to a
crisis in Marxism, but two decades later there appears to be something of a
renaissance. There are probably two reasons why this renaissance is occurring,
and why Marxists walk with a renewed spring in their step.
First, for many Marxists the communist
experiment in the Soviet Union had become a major embarrassment. In the
decades immediately after the October Revolution, most had felt an allegiance
to the Soviet Union as the first ‘Workers’ State’. Subsequently, however, this
loyalty had been stretched beyond breaking point by the depravities of
Stalinism, and by Soviet behaviour in its post-Second World War satellites in
Eastern Europe. What was sometimes termed ‘actually existing socialism’ was
plainly not the communist utopia that many dreamed of and that Marx had apparently
promised. Some Marxists were openly critical of the Soviet Union. Others just
kept quiet and hoped that the situation, and the human rights record, would
improve.
The break-up of the Soviet bloc has, in a
sense, wiped the slate clean. This event reopened the possibility of arguing in
favour of Marx’s ideas without having to defend the actions of governments that
justify their behaviour with reference to them. Moreover, the disappearance of
the Soviet Union has encouraged an appreciation of Marx’s work less encumbered
by the baggage of Marxism-Leninism as a state ideology. The significance of
this is underlined when it is realized that many
of the concepts and practices that are
often taken as axiomatic of Marxism do not, in fact, figure in Marx’s writings:
these include the Vanguard party’, ‘democratic centralism’, and the centrally
directed ‘command economy’.
Second, and perhaps more importantly,
Marx’s social theory retains formidable analytical purchase on the world we
inhabit. The vast bulk of his theoretical efforts consisted of a painstaking
analysis of capitalism as a mode of production, and the basic elements of his account have not
been bettered. Indeed, with the ever-increasing penetration of the market mechanism
into all aspects of life, it is arguable that Marx’s forensic examination of
both the extraordinary dynamism and the inherent contradictions of capitalism
are even more relevant now than in his own time. A particular strength of
Marx’s work is his analysis of crisis. Liberal accounts of capitalism suggest
that free markets will move towards equilibrium and will be inherently stable.
Our day-to-day lived experience suggests otherwise. The 1987 stock market
crash, the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s, and the ‘credit
crunch’ of 2008-9 all demonstrate that global
capitalism continues to be rocked by massive convulsions that have enormous
implications for the lives of individuals around the globe. On Marx’s account,
such convulsions, and their baleful human consequences, are an inherent and
inescapable part of the very system itself.
Compared to realism and liberalism (see Chs 6 and 7), Marxist thought presents a rather unfamiliar view of international
relations. While the former portray world politics in ways that resonate with
those presented in the foreign news pages of our newspapers and magazines,
Marxist theories aim to expose a deeper, underlying—indeed hidden—truth. This
is that the familiar events of world politics—wars, treaties, international
aid operations—all occur within structures that have an enormous influence on
those events. These are the structures of a global capitalist system. Any
attempt to understand world politics must be based on a broader understanding
of the processes operating in global capitalism.
In addition to presenting an unfamiliar
view of world politics, Marxist theories are also discomfiting, for they argue
that the effects of global capitalism are to ensure that the powerful and
wealthy continue to prosper, at the expense of the powerless and the poor.
We are all aware that there is gross
inequality in the world. Statistics concerning the human costs of poverty are
truly numbing in their awfulness (the issue of global poverty is further
discussed in Ch. 20). Marxist theorists argue that the relative prosperity of the few is
dependent on the destitution of the many. In Marx’s own words, ‘Accumulation of
wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery,
agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality at the opposite pole.’
In the next section we shall outline some
of the central features of the Marxist approach—or historical materialism, as it is often known. Following on from this, subsequent sections will
explore some of the most important strands in contemporary Marx-inspired
thinking about world politics. We should note, however, that given the
richness and variety of Marxist thinking about world politics, the account that
follows is inevitably destined to be partial and to some extent arbitrary. Our
aim in the following is to provide a route map that we hope will encourage
readers to explore further the work of Marx and of those who have built on the
foundations he laid.
Key Points
Marx's work retains its relevance despite
the collapse of Communist Party rule in the former Soviet Union.
Of particular importance is Marx's
analysis of capitalism, which has yet to be bettered.
Marxist analyses of international
relations aim to reveal the hidden workings of global capitalism. These hidden
workings provide the context in which international events occur.
The
essential elements of Marxist theories of world politics
In his inaugural address to the Working
Men’s International Association in London in 1864, Karl Marx told his audience
that history had ‘taught the working classes the duty to master [for]
themselves the mysteries of international politics’. However, despite the fact
that Marx himself wrote copiously about international affairs, most of this
writing was journalistic in character. He did not incorporate the international
dimension into his theoretical mapping of the contours of capitalism. This
‘omission’ should perhaps not surprise us. The sheer scale of the theoretical
enterprise in which he was engaged, as well as the nature of his own
methodology, inevitably meant that Marx’s work would be contingent and
unfinished.
Marx was an enormously prolific writer,
and his ideas developed and changed over time. Hence it is not surprising that
his legacy has been open to numerous interpretations. In addition, real-world
developments have also led to the revision of his ideas in the light of
experience. Various schools of thought have emerged, which claim Marx as a
direct inspiration, or whose work can be linked to Marx’s legacy. Before we
discuss what is distinctive about these approaches, it is important that we
examine the essential elements of commonality that lie between them.
First, all the theorists discussed in this
chapter share with Marx the view that the social world should be analysed as a
totality. The academic division of the social
world into different areas of
enquiry—history, philosophy, economics, political science, sociology, international
relations, etc.—is both arbitrary and unhelpful. None can be understood without
knowledge of the others: the social world has to be studied as a whole. Given
the scale and complexity of the social world, this entreaty clearly makes great
demands of the analyst. Nonetheless, for Marxist theorists, the disciplinary boundaries
that characterize the contemporary social sciences need to be transcended if we
are to generate a proper understanding of the dynamics of world politics.
Another key element of Marxist thought,
which serves to underline further this concern with interconnection and
context, is the materialist conception of history. The central contention here
is that processes of historical change are ultimately a reflection of the
economic development of society. That is, economic development is effectively
the motor 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. As the means
of production develop, for example through technological advancement, previous
relations of production become outmoded, and indeed become fetters restricting
the most effective utilization of the new productive capacity. 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. This is because, as Marx argues in the Preface to his Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy, ‘the mode of production of material
life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general’
(Marx 1970 [1859]: 20-1). Thus the legal, political, and cultural institutions and practices of a given society reflect and reinforce—in a more or
less mediated form—the pattern of power and control in the economy It follows
logically, therefore, that change in the economic base ultimately leads to
change in the ‘legal and political superstructure’. (For a diagrammatical
representation of the base-superstructure model, see Fig. 8.1.) The relationship between the base and superstructure is one of the key
areas of discussion in Marxism, and for critics of Marxist approaches. A key
contribution to this debate has been the work of Historical Sociologists
inspired by the work of Max Weber (see
Box 8.1).
Class plays a key role in Marxist analysis. In contrast to liberals, who
believe that there is an essential harmony of interest between various social
groups, Marxists hold that society is systematically prone to class conflict.
Indeed, in the Communist Manifesto, which Marx co-authored with Engels,
it is argued that ‘the history of all hitherto existing Societies is the history
of class struggle’ (Marx and Engels 1967). In capitalist society, the main
axis of conflict is between the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and the
proletariat (the workers).
Despite his commitment to rigorous
scholarship, 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. He argued that ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways; the point, however, is to change it’. Marx
It is important to emphasize that the
essential elements of Marxist thought, all too briefly discussed in this section,
are also essentially contested. That is, they are subject to much discussion
and disagreement even among contemporary writers who have been influenced by
Marxist writings. There is disagreement as to how these ideas and concepts
should be interpreted and how they should be put into operation. Analysts also
differ over which elements of Marxist thought are most
relevant, which have been proven to be
mistaken, and which should now be considered as outmoded or in need of radical
overhaul. Moreover, there are substantial differences between them in terms of
their attitudes to the legacy of Marx’s ideas. The work of the new Marxists,
for example, draws far more directly on Marx’s original ideas than does the
work of the critical theorists.
Marx himself provided little in terms of a
theoretical analysis of international relations.
His ideas have been interpreted and
appropriated in a number of different and contradictory ways, resulting in a
number of competing schools of Marxism.
Underlying these different schools are
several common elements that can be traced back to Marx's writings.
Although Marx was clearly aware of the
international and expansive character of capitalism, his key work, Capital,
focuses on the development and characteristics of nineteenth-century British
capitalism. At the start of the twentieth century a number of writers took on
the task of developing analyses that incorporated the implications of
capitalism’s transborder characteristics, in particular imperialism (see Brewer 1990). The best known and most influential work to emerge
from this debate, though, is the pamphlet written by Lenin, and published in
1917, called Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Lenin
accepted much of 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 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 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 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.
Lenin’s views were developed by the Latin
American Dependency School, adherents of which developed the notion of core and
periphery in greater depth. In particular, Raul 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. So, for example, year by year it
requires more tons of coffee to pay for a refrigerator. As a result of their
reliance on primary goods, countries of the periphery become poorer relative to
the core. Other writers, in particular Andre Gunder Frank 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-systems theory is particularly
associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein. For Wallerstein, global
history has been marked by the rise and demise of a series of world systems.
The modern world system emerged in Europe at around the turn of the sixteenth
century. It subsequently expanded to encompass the entire globe. The driving
force behind this seemingly relentless process of expansion and incorporation
has been capitalism, defined by Wallerstein as ‘a system of production for
sale in a market for profit and
In terms of the geography of the modern
world system, in addition to a core-periphery distinction, Wallerstein added an
intermediate semi-periphery, which displays certain features characteristic of
the core and others characteristic of the periphery. Although dominated by core
economic interests, the semi-periphery has its own relatively vibrant indigenously
owned industrial base (see Fig. 8.2). Because of this hybrid nature, the
semi-periphery plays important economic and political roles in the modern world
system. In particular, it provides a source of labour that counteracts any
upward pressure on wages in the core and also provides a new home for those
industries that can no longer function profitably in the core (for example,
car assembly and textiles). The semi-periphery also plays a vital role in
stabilizing the political structure of the world system.
According to world-systems theorists, the
three zones of the world economy are linked together in an exploitative
relationship in which wealth is drained away from the periphery to the core. As
a consequence, the relative positions of the zones become ever more deeply
entrenched: the rich get richer while the poor become poorer.
Together, the core, semi-periphery, and
periphery make up the geographic dimension of the world economy. However,
described in isolation they provide a rather static portrayal of the world
system. A key component of Wallerstein’s analysis has been to describe how
world systems have a distinctive life cycle: a beginning, a middle, and an end.
In this sense, the capitalist world system is no different from any other system
that has preceded it. Controversially, Wallerstein argues that the end of the
cold war, rather than marking a triumph for liberalism, indicates that the
current system has entered its ‘end’ phase—a period of crisis that will end
only when it is replaced by another system (Wallerstein 1995). On Wallerstein’s
reading, such a period of crisis is also a time of opportunity. In a time of
crisis, actors have far greater agency to determine the character of the
replacement structure. Much of Wallerstein’s recent work has been an attempt to
develop a political programme to promote a new world system that is more
equitable and just than the current one (Wallerstein 1998, 1999, 2006). From
this perspective, to focus on globalization
is to ignore what is truly novel about the
contemporary era. Indeed, for Wallerstein, current globalization discourse
represents a ‘gigantic misreading of current reality’ (Wallerstein 2003: 45).
The phenomena evoked by ‘globalization’ are manifestations of a world system
that emerged in Europe during the sixteenth century to incorporate the entire
globe: a world system now in terminal decline.
Various writers have built on or amended
the framework established by Wallerstein (Denemark et al. 2000). Christopher
Chase-Dunn, for example, lays much more emphasis on the role of the inter-state
system than Wallerstein. He argues that the capitalist mode of production has
a single logic, in which both politico-military and exploitative economic
relations play key roles. In a sense, he attempts to bridge the gap between
Wallerstein’s work and that of the new Marxists (discussed below), by placing
much more of an emphasis on production in the world economy and how this
influences its development and future trajectory (see Chase-Dunn 1998).
Feminist Marxists have also played a
significant role in theorizing the development of an international capitalist
system. A particular concern of feminist writers (often drawing their
inspiration from Engels’s 1884 work The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State) has been the role of women, both in the workplace
and as the providers of domestic labour necessary for the reproduction of
capitalism. Mies (1998 [1986]), for example, argued that women play a central
role in the maintenance of capitalist relations. There is, she argues, a sexual
division of labour: first, in the developed world as housewives, whose labour
is unpaid, but vital in maintaining and reproducing the labour force; and
second, in the developing world as a source of cheap labour. Women, she later
argued, were the ‘last colony’ (Mies et al. 1988), a view that can be traced
back to Luxemburg’s claim regarding the role of the colonies in international
capitalism.
Key Points
Marxist theorists have consistently
developed an analysis of the global aspects of international capitalism-an
aspect acknowledged by Marx, but not developed in Capital.
World-systems theory can be seen as a
direct development of Lenin's work on imperialism and the Latin American
Dependency School.
Feminist writers have contributed to the
analysis of international capitalism by focusing on the specific role of women.
Gramscianism
|
In this section we discuss the strand of
Marxist theory that has emerged from the work of the Italian Marxist, - Antonio
Gramsci. Gramsci’s work has become particularly influential in the study of
international political economy, where a neo-Gramscian or ‘Italian’ school is
flourishing. Here we shall discuss Gramsci’s legacy, and the work of Robert W.
Cox, a contemporary theorist who has been instrumental in introducing his work
to an International Relations audience.
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) was a
Sardinian and one of the founding members of the Italian Communist Party. He
was jailed in 1926 for his political activities, and spent the remainder of his
life in prison. Although he is regarded by many as the most creative Marxist
thinker of the twentieth century, he produced no single, integrated
theoretical treatise. Rather, his intellectual legacy has been transmitted
primarily through his remarkable Prison Notebooks (Gramsci 1971). The
key question that animated Gramsci’s theoretical work was: why had it proven to
be so difficult to promote revolution in Western Europe? Marx, after all, had
predicted that revolution, and the transition
to socialism, would occur first in the
most advanced capitalist societies. But, in the event, it was the Bolsheviks
of comparatively backward Russia that had made the first ‘breakthrough’, while
all the subsequent efforts by putative revolutionaries in Western and Central
Europe to emulate their success ended in failure. The history of the early
twentieth century seemed to suggest, therefore, that there was a flaw in
classical Marxist analysis. But where had they gone wrong?
Gramsci’s answer revolves around his use
of the concept of hegemony, his understanding of which reflects his broader
conceptualization of power. Gramsci
develops Machiavelli’s view of power as a
centaur, half beast, half man: a mixture of coercion and consent. In
understanding how the prevailing order was maintained, Marxists had
concentrated almost exclusively on the coercive practices and capabilities of the state. On this understanding, it was simply
coercion, or the fear of coercion, that kept the exploited and alienated
majority in society from rising up and overthrowing the system that was the
cause of their suffering. Gramsci recognized that while this characterization
may have held true in less developed societies, such as pre-revolutionary
Russia, it was not the case in the more developed countries of the West. Here
the system was also maintained through consent.
Consent, on Gramsci’s reading, is created
and recreated by the hegemony of the ruling class in society. It is this
hegemony that allows the moral, political, and cultural values of the dominant
group to become widely dispersed throughout society and to be accepted by subordinate
groups and classes as their own. This takes place through the institutions of civil society: the network
of institutions and practices that enjoy
some autonomy from the state, and through which groups and individuals
organize, represent, and express themselves to each other and to the state (for
example, the media, the education system, churches, voluntary organizations).
Several important implications flow from
this analysis. The first is that Marxist theory needs to take superstructural
phenomena seriously, because whik the structure of society may ultimately be a
reflection o social relations of production in the economic base, th< nature
of relations in the superstructure is of great rel evance in determining how
susceptible that society i to change and transformation. Gramsci used the term historic
bloc’ to describe the mutually reinforcing and reciprocal relationships between
the socio-economic relations (base) and political and cultural practices
(superstructure) that together underpin a given order. For Gramsci and
Gramscians, to reduce analysis to the narrow consideration of economic
relationships, on the one hand, or solely to politics and ideas, on the other,
is deeply mistaken. It is the interaction that matters.
Gramsci’s argument also has crucial
implications for political practice. If the hegemony of the ruling class is a
key element in the perpetuation of its dominance, then society can only be
transformed if that hegemonic position is successfully challenged. This entails
a counter-hegemonic struggle in civil society, in which the prevailing
hegemony is undermined, allowing an alternative historic bloc to be
constructed.
Gramsci’s writing reflects a particular
time and a particular—and in many ways unique—set of circumstances. This has
led several writers to question the broader applicability of his ideas (see
Burnham 1991; Germain and Kenny 1998). But the most important test, of course,
is how useful ideas and concepts derived from Gramsci’s work prove to be when
they are removed from their original context and applied to other issues and
problems. It is to this that we now turn.
Robert Cox-the analysis of 'world order'
The person who has done most to introduce
Gramsci to the study of world politics is the Canadian scholar Robert W. Cox.
He has developed a Gramscian approach that involves both a critique of
prevailing theories of international relations and international political
economy, and the development of an alternative framework for the analysis of
world politics.
To explain Cox’s ideas, we begin by
focusing on one particular sentence in his seminal 1981 article, ‘Social
Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’. The
sentence, which has become one of the most often-quoted lines in all of
contemporary international relations theory, reads as follows: ‘Theory is
always for some one, and for some purpose’ (1981: 128). It expresses a
worldview that follows logically from the Gramscian, and broader Marxist,
position that has been explored in this chapter. If ideas and values are (ultimately)
a reflection of a particular set of social relations, and are transformed as
those relations are themselves transformed, then this suggests that all
knowledge (of the social world at least) must reflect a certain context, a
certain time, a certain space. Knowledge, in other words, cannot be objective
and timeless in the sense that some contemporary realists, for example, would
like to claim.
One key implication of this is that there
can be no simple separation between facts and values. Whether consciously or
not, all theorists inevitably bring their values to bear on their analysis.
This leads Cox to suggest that we need to look closely at each of those
theories, those ideas, those analyses that claim to be objective or value-free,
and ask who or what is it for, and what purpose does it serve? He subjects
realism, and in particular its contemporary variant neo-realism, to thoroughgoing critique on these grounds. According
to Cox, these theories are for—or serve the interests of—those who prosper
under the prevailing order, that is the inhabitants of the developed states,
and in particular the ruling elites. Their purpose, whether consciously or not,
is to reinforce and legitimate the status quo. They do this by making the
current configuration of international relations appear natural and immutable.
When realists (falsely) claim to be describing the world as it is, as it has
been, and as it always will be, what they are in fact doing is reinforcing the
ruling hegemony in the current world order.
Cox contrasts problem-solving theory (that
is, theory that accepts the parameters of the present order, and thus helps
legitimate an unjust and deeply iniquitous system) 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.
One way in which theory can contribute to
these emancipatory goals is by developing a theoretical understanding of world
orders that grasps both the sources of stability in a given system, and also
the dynamics of processes of transformation. In this context, Cox draws on
Gramsci’s notion of hegemony and transposes it to the international realm,
arguing that hegemony is as important for maintaining stability and continuity
here 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.
For the two hegemons that Cox analyses
(the UK and the USA), the ruling hegemonic idea has been ‘free trade’. The
claim that this system benefits everybody has been so widely accepted that it
has attained ‘common sense’ status. Yet the reality is that while ‘free trade’
is very much in the interests of the hegemon (which, as the most efficient
producer in the global economy, can produce goods which are competitive in all
markets, so long as they have access to them), its benefits for peripheral
states and regions are far less apparent. Indeed, many would argue that ‘free
trade’ is a hindrance to their economic and social development. The degree to
which a state can successfully produce and reproduce its hegemony is an
indication of the extent of its power. The success of the USA in gaining
worldwide acceptance for neo-liberalism suggests just how dominant the current
hegemon has become.
But despite the dominance of the present
world order Cox does not expect it to remain unchallenged. Rather, he maintains
Marx’s view that capitalism is an inherently unstable system, riven by
inescapable contradictions. Inevitable economic crises will act as a catalyst
for the emergence of counter-hegemonic movements (see Case Study 1). The
success of such movements is, however, far from assured. In this sense,
thinkers like Cox face the future on the basis of a dictum popularized by
Gramsci—that is, combining ‘pessimism of the intellect’ with ‘optimism of the
will’.
Key Points
Drawing on the work of Antonio Gramsci for
inspiration, writers within an 'Italian' school of international relations have
made a considerable contribution to thinking about world politics.
Gramsci shifted the focus of Marxist
analysis more towards superstructural phenomena. In particular, he explored the
processes by which consent for a particular social and political system was
produced and reproduced through the operation of hegemony. Hegemony allows the
ideas and ideologies of the ruling stratum to become widely dispersed, and
widely accepted, throughout society.
Thinkers such as Robert W. Cox have attempted
to 'internationalize' Gramsci's thought by transposing several of his key
concepts, most notably hegemony, to the global context.
Critical theory
|
Both Gramscianism 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. There is a clear difference in focus between these two strands of
Marxist thought, with those influenced by Gramsci tending to be much more
concerned with issues relating to the subfield of international political
economy than critical theorists. Critical theorists, on the other hand, have
involved themselves with questions concerning international society, international ethics, and security (the
latter in development of critical security studies). In this section we
introduce critical theory and the thought of one of its main proponents in the
field of international relations, Andrew Linklater.
Critical theory developed out of the work
of the Frankfurt School. This was an extraordinarily talented group of thinkers
who began to work together in the 1920s and 1930s. As left-wing German Jews,
the members of the school were forced into exile by the Nazis’ rise to power
in the early 1930s, and much of their most creative work was produced in the
USA. The leading lights of the first generation of the Frankfurt School
included Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. A subsequent
generation has taken up the legacy of these thinkers and developed it in
important and innovative ways. The best known is Jurgen Habermas, who is regarded
by many as the most influential of all contemporary social theorists. Given the
vast scope of critical theory writing, we can do no more here than introduce
some of the key features.
The first point to note is that their
intellectual concerns are rather different from those of most other Marxists,
in that they have not been much interested in the further development of
analysis of the economic base of society. They have instead concentrated on
questions relating to culture, bureaucracy, the social basis and nature of
authoritarianism, the structure of the family, and on exploring such concepts
as reason and rationality as well as theories of knowledge. Frankfurt School
theorists have been particularly innovative in terms of their analysis of the
role of the media, and what they have famously termed the ‘culture industry’.
In other words, in classical Marxist terms, the focus of critical theory is
almost entirely superstructural.
Another key feature is that critical
theorists have been highly dubious as to whether the proletariat in
contemporary society does in fact embody the potential for emancipatory
transformation in the way that Marx believed. Rather, with the rise of mass
culture and the increasing commodification of every element of social life,
Frankfurt School thinkers have argued that the working class has simply been
absorbed by the system and no longer represents a threat to it. This, to use
Marcuse’s famous phrase, is a one-dimensional society, to which the vast
majority simply cannot begin to conceive an alternative.
Finally, critical theorists have made some
of their most important contributions through their explorations of the
meaning of emancipation. Emancipation, as we have seen, is a key concern of
Marxist thinkers, but the meaning that they give to the term is often very
unclear and deeply ambiguous. Moreover, the historical record is unfortunately
replete with examples of unspeakably barbaric behaviour being justified in the
name of emancipation, of which imperialism and Stalinism are but two.
Traditionally, Marxists have equated emancipation with the process of humanity
gaining ever greater mastery over nature through the development of ever more
sophisticated technology, and its use for the benefit of all. But early critical
theorists argued that humanity’s increased domination over nature had been
bought at too high a price, claiming that the kind of mind-set that is required
for conquering nature slips all too easily into the domination of other human
beings. In contrast, they argued that emancipation had to be conceived of in
terms of a reconciliation with nature—an evocative, if admittedly vague,
vision. By contrast, Habermas’s understanding of emancipation is more concerned
with communication than with our relationship with the natural world. Setting
aside the various twists and turns of his argument, Habermas’s central
political point is that the route to emancipation lies through radical democracy—that
is, through a system in which the widest possible participation is encouraged
not only in word (as is the case in many Western democracies) but also in deed,
by actively identifying barriers to participation—be they social, economic, or
cultural—and overcoming them. For Habermas and his many followers, participation
is not to be confined within the borders of a particular sovereign state.
Rights and obligations extend beyond state frontiers. This, of course, leads
him directly to the concerns of international relations, and it is striking
that Habermas’s recent writings have begun to focus on the international realm.
However, thus far, the most systematic attempt to think through some of the
key issues in world politics from a recognizably Habermasian perspective has
been made by Andrew Linklater.
Andrew Linklater has used some of the key
principles and precepts developed in Habermas’s work to argue that
emancipation in the realm of international relations should be understood in
terms of the expansion of the moral boundaries of a political community. In other words, he equates emancipation with a process
in which the borders of the sovereign
state lose their ethical and moral
significance. At present, state borders denote the furthest extent of our sense
of duty and obligation, or at best, the point where our sense of duty and
obligation is radically transformed, only proceeding in a very attenuated form.
For critical theorists, this situation is simply indefensible. The goal is
therefore to move towards a situation in which citizens share the same duties
and obligations towards non-citizens as they do towards their fellow citizens.
To arrive at such a situation would, of
course, entail a wholesale transformation of the present institutions of
governance. But an important element of the critical theory method is to identify—and,
if possible, 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.
Key Points
Critical theory has its roots in the work
of the Frankfurt School.
Habermas has argued that emancipatory
potential lies in the realm of communication, and that radical democracy is the
way in which that potential can be unlocked.
Andrew Linklater has developed critical
theory themes to argue in favour of the expansion of the moral boundaries of
the political community, and has pointed to the European Union as an example of
a post-Westphalian institution of governance.
New
Marxism
In this section we examine the work of
writers who derive their ideas more directly from Marx’s own writings. To
indicate that they represent something of a departure from other Marxist and
post-Marxist trends, we have termed them ‘new Marxists’. They themselves might
well prefer to be described as
‘historical materialists’ (one of the key
academic journals associated with this approach is called Historical
Materialism), although as that is a self-description which has also been
adopted by some Gramsci-inspired writers, that appellation may not be
particularly helpful for our present purposes. At any rate, even if there is
(at present) no settled label for this group of scholars, the fundamental
approach that they embody is not hard to characterize. They are Marxists that
have returned to the fundamental tenets of Marxist thought and sought to
reappropriate ideas that they regard as having been neglected or somehow
misinterpreted by subsequent generations. On this basis, they have sought both
to criticize other developments in Marxism, and to make their own original
theoretical contributions to the understanding of contemporary trends.
Justin Rosenberg-capitalism and global
social relations
The new Marxist approach can be
exemplified through an examination of the work of Justin Rosenberg, and in
particular his analysis of the character of the international system and its
relationship to the changing character of social relations. Rosenberg’s
starting point is a critique of realist international relations theory. He
seeks to challenge realism’s claim to provide an ahis- torical, essentially
timeless account of international relations through an examination of the differences
in the character of international relations between the Greek and Italian
city-states. A touchstone of realist theory is the similarity between these two
historical cases. Rosenberg, however, describes the alleged resemblances
between these two eras as a ‘gigantic optical illusion’. Instead, his analysis
suggests that the character of the international system in each period was completely
different. In addition, he charges that attempts to provide an explanation of
historical outcomes during these periods, working purely from the inter-state
level, is not feasible (as, for example, in realist accounts of the
Peloponnesian War). Finally, Rosenberg argues that realist attempts to portray
international systems as autonomous, entirely political realms founder because
in the Greek and Italian examples this external autonomy was based on the
character of internal—and in each case different—sets of social relations.
As an alternative, Rosenberg argues for
the development of a theory of international relations that is sensitive to
the changing character of world politics. This theory must also recognize that
international relations are part of a broader pattern of social relations. His
starting point is Marx’s observation:
It is always the direct relationship of the owners of
the conditions of production to the direct producers ... which reveals the
innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure, and with it
the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the
corresponding specific form of the state. (Rosenberg 1994: 51)
In other words, the character of the
relations of production permeates the whole of society—right up to, and
including, relations between states. The form of the state will be different
under different modes of production, and as a result the characteristics of
inter-state relations will also vary. Hence, if we want to understand the way
that international relations operate in any particular era, our starting point
must be an examination of the mode of production, and in particular the
relations of production.
In his more recent work, Rosenberg has
turned his critical attention to ‘globalization theory’ (Rosenberg 2000,2006).
He argues that globalization is a descriptive category denoting ‘the
geographical extension of social processes’. That such social processes have
become a global phenomenon is beyond dispute, and a ‘theory of globalization’
is needed to explain what and why this is happening. Such a theory, for
Rosenberg, should be rooted in classical social theory. But, instead, a body of
‘globalization theory’ has emerged premised on the claim that the supposed
compression of time and space that typifies globalization requires a whole new
social theory in order to explain contemporary developments. But on Rosenberg’s
reading, this body of theory has produced little in terms of explaining the
processes. Moreover, the events of the early twenty-first century were not
those predicted by ‘globalization theory’. As a result, such theorizing is best
understood as a product of changes that occurred in the last years of the
twentieth century, and in particular the political and economic vacuum created
by the collapse of the Soviet Union, rather than an adequate explanation of
them. A proper explanation, rooted in classical social theory in general, and
Marx’s thought in particular, would examine the underlying social relations
that have led to the capitalist system becoming dominant throughout the globe.
Key Points
New Marxism is characterized by a direct
(re)appropriation of the concepts and categories developed by Marx.
Rosenberg uses Marx's ideas to criticize
realist theories of international relations, and globalization theory. He seeks
to develop an alternative approach that understands historical change in world
politics as a reflection of transformations in the prevailing relations of
production.
Conclusion:
Marxist theories of international relations and
globalization
As outlined in the first chapter of this
book, globalization is the name given to the process whereby social
transactions of all kinds increasingly take place without accounting for
national or state boundaries, with the result that the world has become one
relatively borderless social sphere’. Marxist theorists would certainly not
seek to deny that these developments are taking place, nor would they deny
their importance, but they would reject any notion that they are somehow novel.
Marx and Engels were clearly aware not only of the global scope of capitalism,
but also of its potential for social transformation. In a particularly
prescient section of the Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1967:
83-4), for example, they argue:
The bourgeoisie has through its
exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production
and consumption in every country ... All old- established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new
industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all
civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw
material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose
products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe ...
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. Similarly, ecological processes have always ignored state
boundaries, even if it is only recently that growing environmental
degradation has finally allowed this fact
to permeate public consciousness.
While the intensity of cross-border flows
may be increasing, this does not necessarily signify the fundamental change in
the nature of world politics proclaimed by so many of those who argue that we
have entered an era of globalization. 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. Many
Marxists, for example, regard the delegitimation of the sovereign state as a
very important contemporary development. However, the essential first step in
generating any understanding of those trends regarded as evidence of
globalization must be to map the contours of global capitalism itself. If we
fail to do so, we shall inevitably fail to gauge the real significance of the
changes that are occurring.
Another danger of adopting an ahistoric
and uncritical attitude to globalization is that it can blind us to the way in
which reference to globalization is increasingly becoming part of the
ideological armoury of elites in the contemporary world. ‘Globalization’ is
now regularly cited as a reason to promote measures to reduce workers’ rights
and lessen other constraints on business. Such ideological justifications for
policies that favour the interests of business can only be countered through a
broader understanding of the relationship between the political and economic
structures of capitalism. As we have seen, 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.
Case
Study 1
Occupy!
A core
element of Marx's analysis of capitalism was that it would be subject to
recurrent crises. Such a crisis has engulfed the world economy since 2008. One
of its key features has been a crisis in the banking system, which has seen
governments intervening to prop up failing or ailing banks. While governments
felt that they had little option but to do so, their actions have in turn left
them highly indebted. In response to this we have seen the imposition of
austerity programmes: cutbacks in services (such as welfare, education, health,
and pensions) as well as in public sector employment. Despite the'free
market'dogma of recent decades, markets have failed, and this failure has been
paid for by the most vulnerable members of society. As David Harvey (2010: 10)
put
it,
it's been a case of'privatise profits and socialise risks; save the banks and
put the screws on the people'.
The
imposition of austerity programmes by governments has"resulted in
widespread resistance, seen at its most radical in Greece, where the heavily
indebted government has been put under extreme pressure by its fellow eurozone
partners to slash its spending. The result has been a dramatic cut in wages (an
average of 35 per cent), extremely high levels of unemployment, and threats to
the political system itself with the rise of the Golden Dawn neo-Nazi party.
An
alternative response has been the Occupy movement, whose founding can on most
accounts be traced to the establishment by a group of protesters of an
encampment in Zuccotti Park, close to Wall Street, New York on 17 September
2011. The New York protesters had themselves been inspired by the so-called
Arab Spring as well as Los Indignados-the
protest movement that developed in May 2011 in Spain, another heavily indebted
eurozone country. Underlining these global interconnections and influences, the
Wall Street camp catalysed occupations in a further 951 cities over 82
countries. Despite the subsequent breakup of the major encampments, Occupy has
maintained a high profile as a networked group of worldwide activists.
One of
Occupy's key slogans-'We are the 99 per cent’-has sought to highlight the
growing disparity between the richest and the poorest in society, and the ways
in which, even at the height of the post-2008 economic crisis, the very richest
have been able to not only protect their incomes, but even to boost them. But,
while the movement may have been effective in highlighting the iniquities of
the capitalist system, it has been less successful in advocating an alternative
to global capitalism. Ultimately, Occupy appears to support a reform of
capitalism, with a greater distribution of wealth, debt cancellation, less
political power to the financial class, and the protection of public services
(see Occupy London 2012). This would place it at odds with much Marxist
thinking, which would advocate the wholesale overthrow of capitalist social
relations.
Theory
applied
Visit
the Online Resource Centre to see real world applications of theoretical
perspectives.
Questions
How would you account for the continuing
vitality of Marxist thought?
How useful is Wallerstein's notion of a
semi-periphery?
Why has Wallerstein's world-systems theory
been criticized for its alleged Eurocentrism? Do you agree with this critique?
Evaluate Rosenberg's critique of
'globalization theory'.
In what ways does Gramsci's notion of
hegemony differ from that used by realist International Relations writers?
In what ways might it be argued that Marx
and Engels were the original theorists of globalization?
What do you regard as the main
contribution of Marxist theory to our understanding of world politics?
How useful is the notion of emancipation
used by critical theorists?
Do you agree with Cox's distinction
between 'problem-solving theory' and 'critical theory'? 10 Assess Wallerstein's
claim that the power of the USA is in decline.
Box 8.1
Historical sociology
As we have seen, one of the key debates in Marxism concerns the relationship between the base and superstructure. Traditionally, Marxists have focused attention on the base, seeing the elements of the superstructure as a reflection of economic relations. At its most forceful, this is often viewed as 'economic determinism'-the view that social relations (e.g. law, politics) can be directly correlated from the underlying mode of production. Frankfurt School critical theorists and neo-Gramscian scholars have relaxed this view, focusing their analysis on the superstructure, and its role in maintaining the economic base.
Another way of thinking about these issues is to consider the work of historical sociologists. The term 'historical sociology' is somewhat daunting and potentially misleading. In essence it means an approach to the study of the social world that draws on history as the main source of evidence. Historical sociologists are interested in the ways in which social life changes over time, and attempt to provide explanations for those changes. As an example, Theda Skocpol's book, States and Social Revolution (1979), attempted to develop a theory of revolution, and then drew on the examples of the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions to confirm her analysis.
Historical sociology comes in many different forms (see Hobden and Hobson 2002), one of which is Marxism itself, having as it does a theory of history. However, in international relations, the term has become synonymous with the work of what are termed neo-Weberian scholars. These writers came to the attention of international relations theorists because of their interest in international relations; their analysis of social change, in particular state formation, provided a more nuanced account than that suggested by realism. For example, part of Skocpol's theoretical analysis argues that it was inter-state relations (e.g. involvement in war) that contributed to a revolutionary outcome, and influenced the outcome of revolutions. Likewise, Charles Tilly (1975; see also Tilly 1992), in his analysis of state development, drew a direct link between war and state-making with his claim that 'war made the state and the state made war'.
Perhaps the most influential of the neo-Weberians has been Michael Mann. His major work, The Sources of Social Power (1986; 1993), attempts a rewriting of global history through the lens of a multicausal approach to social change. Whereas Marxists see the main explanation of social change at an economic level, Mann argues that there are four types of social power: ideology, economic, military, and political (often shortened to IEMP). Rather than arguing that one source of social power is more significant (as Marxists do), Mann argues that different sources of social power have been more significant in different historical epochs. For example, Mann argues that in recent centuries economic power has been significant, whereas in the past ideological power (particularly religion) has been more important. Furthermore, the sources of social power can amalgamate to give different combinations. Pre-guessing Mann, one might argue that, given the increasing significance of religion in international politics, economics and ideology are the leading sources of social power in the current era.
Box 8.2
Interrelationships in the world economy
Further Reading
Perhaps the most influential of the neo-Weberians has been Michael Mann. His major work, The Sources of Social Power (1986; 1993), attempts a rewriting of global history through the lens of a multicausal approach to social change. Whereas Marxists see the main explanation of social change at an economic level, Mann argues that there are four types of social power: ideology, economic, military, and political (often shortened to IEMP). Rather than arguing that one source of social power is more significant (as Marxists do), Mann argues that different sources of social power have been more significant in different historical epochs. For example, Mann argues that in recent centuries economic power has been significant, whereas in the past ideological power (particularly religion) has been more important. Furthermore, the sources of social power can amalgamate to give different combinations. Pre-guessing Mann, one might argue that, given the increasing significance of religion in international politics, economics and ideology are the leading sources of social power in the current era.
Box 8.2
Interrelationships in the world economy
Further Reading
Anderson, K. A. (2010), Marx at the Margins: On
Nationalism, Ethnicity and Non-Western Societies (London: University of Chicago Press). A brilliant
reconstruction of Marx's own writing on world politics.
Cox, R. W. (1981), 'Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond
International Relations Theory', Millennium,
10(2): 126-55. Cox's much-quoted essay continues to inspire.
Derlurguian, G. M. (2005), Bourdieu's Secret Admirer in the
Caucasus: A World-System Biography (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press). This
unconventional book is a dazzling display of the insights generated by the
world-system approach.
Lenin, V. I. (1916), Imperialism: The Highest Stage of
Capitalism (multiple editions available). While of
limited contemporary relevance, it is still worth reading this once-influential
pamphlet.
Linklater, A. (2007), Critical Theory and World
Politics: Sovereignty, Citizenship and Humanity (London: Routledge). An important book from one the
most influential critical theorists working on international relations.
Marx, K., and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifesto (multiple editions available). The best introduction
to Marx's thinking. Essential reading even after 150 years.
Teschke, B. (2003), The Myth of 1648: Class,
Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations (London: Verso). A powerful new Marxist reading of
the development of international relations.
Wyn Jones, R. (ed.) (2001), Critical Theory and World Politics (Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner). Contributions from the most significant writers working in the
critical theory tradition.
Online Resource Centre
Visit the Online Resource Centre that
accompanies this book to access more learning resources on this chapter topic
at www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/baylis6exe/
No comments:
Post a Comment