POSC 2200 – Theoretical
Approaches
Russell Alan Williams
Department of Political Science
Unit Two:
Theoretical Approaches
“Marxism and Radicalism”
Required Reading:


Globalization of World Politics, Chapter 9
Vladimir Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism, Chapter VII, “Imperialism as a Special
stage of Capitalism” (Available from:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/im
p-hsc/ch07.htm, or from the instructor)
Outline:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction to Radicalism
Key Assumptions
Contemporary Approaches
Conclusions
For Next Time
1) Introduction to Radicalism:

Marxism, radicalism, critical theory are all labels for a
“catch all category” . . . .
= Approach that questions the nature of existing global
relations – relations which are often taken for granted in
realist and liberal scholarship

Explore topics “made invisible” by mainstream approaches

E.g. Economic inequality
-General link to Marxist political economy . . .

Key Thinkers:

Lenin

Gunder Frank

Wallerstein

Cox
2) Key Assumptions:
A) System of production central to IR


“Means of Production” = economic system
“Modes of Production” = social relations
=Heavy emphasis on economics and global capitalism
=More relevance to IPE???
B) Importance of historical analysis
System of production changes over time . . .
 Will result in changes in international politics/foreign policy


Westphalian states  “Neoliberal” states
C) All politics driven by “class” struggle

Capitalism inherently exploitative
 IR can be seen as a “subset” of struggles among
different classes – goal should be “emancipation”
D) Global system is VERY hierarchical - states are
not all the same . . . despite sovereignty

“Imperialism”: Conquest or control of other societies
 Driven by expansion of specific economic system
= Capitalism

Marxist economics suggests capitalism prone to
crises:
 Leads to depressions, dissatisfaction and
revolutions . . . .

Can only be managed by state oppression and
imperial expansion . . .
D) Global system is VERY hierarchical . . . .

E.g. Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924)


Architect of the Russian Revolution
IR scholar(?)
Example: “Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism”:
Believed:
“Monopoly Capitalist” phase had begun in great powers

=Declining profits for proto-MNC’s
Elites demanded “new imperialism” of 19th century for
“super-exploitation” of south

Result: > Intensified imperial rivalries

> World War I
Implications:

Economic problems = “Imperialism” = War


International power requires economic domination
Communist revolution needed to end capitalism – this
will end wars
D) Global system is VERY hierarchical . . .

E.g. Dependency Theory (Gunder Frank)

Logical successor to Lenin:

Capitalist imperialism = war & underdevelopment
= southern states will be systematically exploited

Labour and natural resources produce “super profits”
necessary for capitalism
Example: Gunder Frank & the challenge of
development
Argued: Careful study of history showed that south was
systemically underdeveloped, not undeveloped
E.g. Northern “Multinational Corporations” undermined natural
local development
Implications: Northern development strategies would
never work in south!!

Policy?

Southern states could only develop by isolating
themselves from global capitalism?

Revolutions or Protectionism
Example: Gunder Frank & the challenge of
development
Problems:

Dependency strategies not successful (?)

Success of East Asian states since 1970s (?)
Remains a popular method for understanding IR, but less
popular as an economic strategy . . .
D) Global system is VERY hierarchical . . .

World Systems Theory
(Wallerstein)
Argues: World organized into single global capitalist system
 Capitalism determines states’ position in international
hierarchy – only core countries have power and real
sovereignty
 Core: Wealthy “metropolitan countries” = Advanced
industry and banking
 E.g. United States
 Semi-Periphery: Weaker countries with some industry –
partially exploited by core
 E.g. Brazil? Indonesia?
Canada?
 Periphery: Poor countries – mainly exploited for natural
resources

Change in position possible, but change is slow . . .
3) Contemporary Approaches:

Two “families of thought”:

“New Marxism”

“Gramscianism”
A) “New Marxism”


Evidence of “decolonization”, “NIC” development and
“globalization” shift focus from interstate hierarchy
Modern approach is a more direct critique of mainstream
“IR”, and “Neorealism” in particular
 IR is based on “bad” history, nature of states is
constantly changing as technology and production
changes
 Transition to “neoliberal” state just the latest evolution


E.g. “sovereignty” no longer as important as servicing
capitalism

“Credit Crunch” (2008)

“East Asian Financial Crisis” (1998)
Different forms of state are not a product of “anarchy”,
“interdependence” or “globalization” but are part of class
struggle = we can make different states . . . .
B) “Gramscianism”
(Robert Cox)

Modern approach popular in Canada and Britain:
 Focus on global class relations and ideology – often
linked to “constructivism”
 Less “state centric” than other IR theories – including
“New Marxism” . . . .

Transnational Capitalist Class (MNC’s)
 $$$$ = power in politics and international institutions
 $$$$ = ideological domination over subordinate
classes
=“Hegemony”: understood as the ideological
generation of “consent” by elites in society
 State “coercion” and imperialism not
necessary as most accept prevailing order
B) “Gramscianism”

E.g. “Washington Consensus” = “neoliberal”
development strategy

Lower taxes, remove tariffs, remove obstacles to MNC
activity and cut social programs etc. and development will
occur
=A development strategy designed by MNC’s not the
global poor . . . .
B) “Gramscianism”

Implications?

International politics is a war of ideas between elites and
others – weaker groups must organize “counter
hegemony” supporting alternative ideas
4) Conclusions:
Who are the actors of international politics?
A) Social classes (Marx  Gramscianism)
B) Corporations
C) States (Lenin World Systems Theory)

However . . . states are agents of economic elites not
independent actors (?)
D) Most important site of of analysis = “Capitalism”

Economic system and the political relations it creates
4) Conclusions:
Strengths:

Focus on issues ignored by Realism/Liberalism
 Position of southern states

Clear normative position
 Purpose of international politics/foreign policy
should be to reduce exploitation
Weaknesses:

Unclear implications


Does capitalism cause war?
Or,
Does capitalism lead to peace driven by
harmony of interests of “capitalist elite”?

Unclear policy recommendations
 What should southern states do????

Pessimism about solutions
5) For Next Time . . .
Unit Two:
Theoretical Approaches
“Constructivism, Post Structuralism and Feminism”
Required Reading:

Globalization of World Politics, Chapters 10, 11, 12
and 17.

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is what states make of it:
The social construction of power politics,”
International Organization, Vol. 46(2), (Spring 1992),
Pp. 391-425. (Available through e-journals, or as an
excerpt available from the instructor.)