CandNo:122578

! ! !

Are Marxist approaches irrelevant to analysis of international relations, because the basic unit of international relations is the state?
! ! !
Intoduction
! There is an ongoing debate between the scholars in international relations whether Marxist point of view on the international system is in any degree relevant to our subject, since it seems to cover areas which are usually assigned to anthropologists or sociologists. The main reason for that seems to be the fact that Marxist usually think about issues which lie deeper than the level of state. They say that minor actors such as trade unions, political parties or ethnic groups might have a big impact on states international policies. My claim in this essay is that the way in which Marx and marxists speak about International Relations is very important to this discipline. I will do so by describing the reasons because of which Marxist theory was received coldly by the academic society, followed by a critique of how the basic unit in IR is perceived. Then I will prove that so-called Marxist theory is not as the only one that goes beneath the level of state, because similar ideas were arising hundreds of years before Marx. I will speak about thinkers before and after Marx and explain how their point of view is similar to his. I believe that in the meantime the role of minor actors in IR will become apparent and this fact will show that there is lots of place for marxist theories in international relations.

The perception of Marxist theory in IR

MARXISM IN IR

"1

!
! Speaking about the way in which Marxist point of view is perceived in contemporary International Relations, the rst thing to say is that (as written by John Maclean in Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect) it is usually believed that it has nothing of large value to offer because it is claimed that it only has relevance to special areas of International Relations. So it seems Marxist theory is unpopular because people people expect the IR theory to cover the basics established by tradition since World War I, that say that the basic unit in IR is the state. The policymakers in various states tend to think about Sri Lanka in the same way they think about Belarus. They think about both of them as just states while they have different culture, geography and people. The reason for that is that they dont look deeper than the level of state for possible outcomes of their policies. I argue that this view is wrong. And it isnt only wrong for International Relations, but for all of the sciences. However any older science does not make the mistake on focussing on traditional approach. If we take Chemistry as an example we might come forth with an analogy: as the state is the basic unit for IR, the atom is the basic unit for Chemistry. Nevertheless because of the experience that Chemistry has got as a science it does not stop its focus on atoms, because that would mean denying the existence of even smaller particles that dene whether this kind of atom is oxygen or carbon. I believe that it is the same for International Relations. Every state is different, so in order to understand its relations with other states you have to understand the internal issues which a particular state faces. And those are very often connected to minor units such as unions, political parties or social classes. If the purpose of International Relations is maintaining peace in the international system, our scientists should focus on such minor issues. ! There is a ne example of how International Relations failed to maintain order exactly because they focused on the foreign affairs, paying little attention to what was happening inside a country. It started in Mexico in 1910, when revolution had started to overthrow an autocratic regime of Porifrio Diaz. Since that time civil unrest has become a trait of Mexico with various uprisings happening even in recent years. This example shows us that stopping at the level of state is dangerous because it leads to underestimation of other actors who could at some point take over the power that belonged to the state, often forming a new one in its place and altering the balance in the international system, for instance, by changing allies and foes. It will support the states that were supporting their resistance and denounce those that were in favour of the old government. All in all, it is always benecial to

MARXISM IN IR

"2

remember that states consist of people. And peoples moods inuence the states politics. Internal, as well as external. !

! !
Ideas before Marx

!
!

While it might seem that arguing that unions, classes and political parties play an

important roles in International Relations originate from Marx, this is far from true. Before World War I there was not a single scholar who wrote only about states external policy. They were rather focusing on the ways to make a state powerful and secure. (which is very similar, by the way) And so, famous philosophers, such as Hegel or Machiavelli assigned important roles to the people, knowing that it is them who, in essence, form the state and, in fact, control it. It might seem strange that I put Machiavellis name, who is regarded as a man perverted by cynicism and immorality next to Marx, who in turn says that morality is a very important value. However I am convinced that Machiavelli is not rightfully portrayed as such. He simply believes that sometimes a ruler should not follow moral principles, since the safety and prosperity of kingdom is more important. In his work The Prince Machiavelli speaks quite a lot about states external policies, describing historical events of his time, which took place in Italy and surrounding countries, but a really important part of his work is where he describes how the balance of power should be maintained inside a state to allow it to remain stable and prosperous. ! He speaks about a tripolar system in a state. It consists of three powers which should work in harmony to maintain the state. They are: the people, the aristocracy and the prince. Relations between the three might be explained in the following way: aristocracy provide resources to the prince, so that he could initiate military campaigns, support trade and ght disasters such as famines, oods or diseases and provide other kinds of protection to the people. What is more, aristocracy needs support from the prince to protect it from the people and the people need protection from the aristocracy. The prince needs protection and support from both, so he has to be on good terms with each of them, however he advises that the best defence of all is not to be hated by people - one should be closer with the people, because when it comes to war, it is easier to protect oneself from a few lords than from the entire kingdom when an unsatised lord will turn the princes people against him.
MARXISM IN IR "3

!
A proof of the power of people

!
!

While this system might seem archaic, however, if you think about it, this system

hasnt changed a lot since Machiavellis times. The main difference is the change in names: aristocracy changed into wealthy people, capitalists, if one prefers, the prince changed into the Parliament, President, Prime Minister or any other kind of highest authority. People remained people. Maybe thats a proof that people could change other powers when they want to, but no power can change the people. It seems like this argument would speak in favour of Marxs theory. Anyway, today we might see how powerful the people are when they become united and organised. In Margins, silences and bottom rungs: how to overcome the underestimation of power in the study of international relations Cynthia Enloe describes the situation in Mexico in 1994 when NAFTA treaty was signed and Zapatista rebellion started. Such outcome was not anticipated by the international relations experts, since they used to leave the study of small groups of people to anthropologists. This underestimation of powers and possible outcomes in the international system has become embedded into classical international relations theory. When we speak about a state as the basic unit in International Relations we should remember the people, the geography and culture that forms the state. ! It would be wise to remember that the example of Mexico is only one drop in an ocean of social unrest which might grow into conicts. There are radical parties, hungry farmers, oppressed women and working children all around the world and no one should want to make them upset. George Bush probably didnt expect that starting a war in Iraq would anger the local population so much that it would start suicide bombings targeted on civilians. The British government probably also didnt expect that giving Israel independence from mandatory Palestine would mean that the Jewish would start ghting Palestinians and vice-versa, which would later produce one of the biggest conicts of our time. Indeed, it seems that all of the mistakes made by the governments international relations policies is the fact that they only think supercially about states. As we can see, this sort of attitude towards IR represented by major actors in the international system often leads to increased instability.

Political Economy by Marx

MARXISM IN IR

"4

John Maclean states that the most important reason as to why Marxism is being neglected in the International Relations is that IR scholars were unable to develop an adequate theory of international political economy. Economic system is to yet incorporated into the IR. Therefore it makes it harder to decide whether Marxs methods can be incorporated into the science of International relations. In his work Marx states that the laws of political economy cannot be measured empirically, because they are impossible to prove historically. The reason for that is the fact that societies change throughout history. The most visible example is the aim of modern states to eliminate wars, because since the development of nuclear weapons they have become extremely dangerous and therefore unprotable for all sides of a conict. What is more, according to Marx, history in itself does nor prove anything, because, as Maclean states, the fact that all border disputes were followed by an armed conict does not mean that future disputes will also be followed by conicts. What Marx wants to demonstrate in his approach is to perform a careful examination of an object that is not material by describing its relation to another object that is material , and therefore empirical. Of course to enable the description of the non-material object it has to be isolated in thought. It is a sort of dissection of the ideas. If after that a some sort of mechanism becomes apparent, it means that this way it is possible to see the laws governing the systems between the objects of study. John Maclean also states that such an approach resembles that of Hegel, but as he later notices himself, Marx denies such a possibility himself in the post-face to the second edition of The Capital, when he states: My dialectical method is, in its foundations not only different from the Hegelian, but exactly opposite to it. For Hegel the process of thinking, which he even transforms into an independent subject, under the name of the idea, is the creator of the real world, and the real world is only the external appearance of the idea. With me, the reverse is true: the ideal is nothing more but the material world reected in the mind of man, and translated into forms of thought. Although such way of research might seem, in a way, incalculable, it nevertheless requires a certain kind of research, which chain of cause and effect seems logical enough to be applied in the area of social sciences. Stepping aside from Marxs potentially useful, but on the other hand largely philosophic al discourse, I will now present the thoughts of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Lenin, in his Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism, states that in a capitalistic system, in a free competition international monopolies are born. If we would take under consideration the fact

MARXISM IN IR

"5

that he has written his Imperialism in the early days of the twentieth century, he could actually be right. This would have a considerable inuence on the international system, since a large part of the states capital would be controlled by monopolies. However, todays capitalism is in many ways different from that in Lenins times. We have now rules and regulations that help us control the spread of monopolies from formation. In fact, current capitalism has adopted many ideas from Marxist thought. Labour is now much more fair, workers are being paid what they deserve, children are not spending their childhoods in factories, but in schools, people have the right for a paid retirement after they reach a certain age. Nevertheless, although things seem to be nice on the lower levels of social pyramid, if a person exceeds others considerably in terms of material wealth, its possibilities to make more money grow out of proportion. This is not necessarily a bad thing as long as we will be able to control such situations and stop such actors them from gaining inuence over governments. This could result in state policies that would run in favour of one company instead of the whole society. What is more, this would inevitably lead to a bigger quantity of wars, because those are protable to banks that lend money to the states in time of need. Of course, such situations would only occur in a worst case scenario, but still, it seems to be wise to pay attention to what marxists, even if they do seem a little radical, say. The truth always lies in the middle, but how can we nd it, if we dont know just how long is the distance to the other side? This is why studying Marxist thought would be very benecial to the study of International Relations.

! !

Conclusion
International Relations is a discipline which boundaries are exible. It is hard to say where IR ends and sociology, anthropology, geography or international development starts. It seems it is that way because IR incorporates all of these sciences in itself. Our science has a very important task of maintaining peace and stability throughout the world. To achieve that goal we have to make sure that every part of the international system works in harmony with others. But how can we do it if we refuse to dig deeper than the level of state, why is it that we should leave the study of society and culture to other sciences, if they concern our to such a great extent. I am convinced that saying that IR ends on the level of state would be irresponsible. It is true that our discipline is too broad to be practised as a whole. To effectively study International Relations we need scholars who specialise in their respective

MARXISM IN IR

"6

elds on all levels of the international system and cooperate with each other to create a system in which we could all live peacefully. But neo-liberalists wont achieve it without the realists and the marxists help. Experimenting, checking the outcome in every possible way is a basis of every modern science and IR should follow suit.

Bibliography

! Albert, Mathias; Jacobson, David; Lapid, Yosef. Identities, Borders, Orders ! ! ! ! ! !

(University of Minnesota Press) 2001 Gill, Steven; Mittelman, James H. Innovation and Transformation in International Studies (Cambridge University Press) 1997 Lenin, Vladimir I. Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism(International Publishers) 2004 Leonard, Mark What does China think?/ Zrozumie! Chiny (Media Lazar) 2009 (Polish edition) Maclean, John Marxism and International Relations: A Strange Case of Mutual Neglect (Millenium Journal of International Studies) 1998 Merle, Marcel The Sociology of International Relations (Berg Publishers) 1987 Smith, Steve; Booth, Ken; Zalewski, Marysia. International theory: positivism and beyond (Cambridge University Press) 1996

MARXISM IN IR

"7