Summarize and explain Marx and Susan Strange’s theory. To what extent do their
theoretical contributions and critiques differ from those offered by realist and liberal
theorists? You should also critically evaluate each theory. Ask yourself: does it represent
an "improvement" on what we find in the older theories (realism/liberalism) or not? Be
sure that you're clear on what makes these theories "alternative" per se.
By: Nazanin Afshin-Jam
History is normally written by the victor and not the vanquished. It seems that a similar
principle applies to theories. The dominant power sectors in society seem to write or at least
accept and make popular theories that suit their interests. Thus far realism and liberalism have
dominated international relations study. Those who gain wealth and power by keeping the status
quo try to promote these theories. Capitalists for example would like to see the spread of
liberalism and make it out as thought its tenets are commonsense and beneficial to all. Realists
would like citizens of a state to believe that conflict is the natural state of the world and have
them rely on the state for protection and other basic responsibilities. What happens to the voice
of those that are marginalized in the world? What theories take into account the perspective of
half the world’s population that lives under the poverty line? Can realism and liberalism developed centuries ago- really explain conflict in IR today? Liberalism and realism both failed
as theories to explain the dynamics of the Cold War (Kaufman, Howell, Parker and Doty 33). It
would appear therefore that new theories should be developed to answer modern day world
phenomena. Offshoots of the two traditional theories, neorealism and neoliberalism have tried to
fill in some of the gaps but critics argue there is a need for complete new theories. Robert Cox
for example, in his 1981 article “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond IR Theory”
said all theories have a perspective that “derive from a position in time and space, specifically
social and political time and space. Thus as reality changes, old concepts have to be adjusted or
1
rejected and new concepts forged” (Ibid,753). As times have changed, borders have opened up
and people have aligned themselves with groups outside of their territorial boundaries – a
dynamic James Rosenau would explain as a trend from localization towards globalization- it
would be fair to assess that theories too must evolve and change. It is time to move away from
what Cox explains as stagnant ‘problem solving theories’ to more dynamic, flexible and evolving
‘critical theories’. Two examples of such alternatives are Marxism and Susan Strange’s theory
extracted from her book Retreat of the State. The state seems to have less relevance in both
theories and instead more emphasis is placed on the individual and their place in IR. Marxism
provides a completely new structure on the way of looking at conflict and the struggle for power.
With the speed of change in technology and communication in the spread of ideas, good and
services due to globalization and an increase in trade, it is more important than ever to formulate
theories which explain the dynamics of newer actors on the world stage and consider economics
as a key factor in IR. Susan Strange does this by providing a fresh alternative to orthodox
principles of realism and liberalism. This essay will explore Karl Marx and Susan Strange’s
theories and see how they compare with the two classic theories of liberalism and realism and
whether they provide a better understanding of the dynamics in IR today.
MARXISM
“Marxism offered both liberals and realists a different explanation for international
conflict and a blueprint for fundamentally transforming the existing international order” (Ibid,
29). Marxism, which has become synonymous with historical materialism, was developed by
19th century German philosopher and theorist Karl Marx. In his book Das Kapital he speaks of
2
the struggle between classes in the capitalist system. Like realists, Marxists say that “man’s
fundamental nature is viewed as predisposed toward conflict” (Ibid, 536). However, instead of
conflict deriving from human nature or the anarchic structure of the world as realists would have
us believe, Marxists see the struggle between classes in the capitalist system as being
responsible. Realists say that “international affairs is a struggle for power among self-interested
states”; Marxist say that the bourgeoisie (capitalist/land owners) are in a struggle with the
proletariat (workers) or on a more macro level the “core” wealthy first world “have” nations are
in a struggle with the “have not” “periphery” third world nations (Ibid, 537). So while Marxists
argue that “capitalist states battle each other as a consequence of their incessant struggle for
profit”, realists argue that states are in a security dilemma and there is an incessant struggle for
gaining power and capabilities in order to ensure state security (Ibid, 29).
Realists believe that war is perpetual and there is no permanent solution to conflict. They say
it can only be contained through a balance of power among states. The level of instability can be
measured by polarity. Marxism on the other hand offers a normative approach by suggesting that
the solution to conflict is an overthrow of the world capitalist system and creation of a
communist system. As Theotoni Dos Santos said there must be “the total destruction of the
international capitalist system and its replacement with an international socialist system (Ibid,
547). Only then do Marxists believe harmony can be found in the world.
Marx predicted six phases of human economic history: primitive communism (single
economy of hunters and gatherers), slave system (slave vs. master), the feudal system (serf vs.
lord), capitalism (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie), socialism (period where bourgeoisie are reeducated
3
against further exploitation of fellow humans) and eventual communism (historical materialism)
(Ibid, 540- 541). Marxists believe we are still trapped in the “capitalist phase” and we are yet to
see a “communist phase”. It is thus difficult to properly assess whether Marxism holds water
unless such an occurrence takes place in the future. If WWI acts as the litmus test, then the
theory does not hold ground because the proletariat class went to war on behalf of the
bourgeoisie even though Marxists had said the proletariat would unite worldwide against their
bourgeois oppressors (Ibid, 542). Furthermore, we have not witnessed an increase in
communism in the world. Rather, we have slowly seen a decline since the collapse of
communism in the Soviet Union in 1991 and an increase of such ex-communist regimes
integrating into the free market system (Ibid, 554). This was especially apparent after the
economic success of the Asian “Four Tigers”, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea,
when they became Newly Industrialized Countries (Ibid, 550). The fact that more and more
countries are entering the capitalist system and they are not going to war with one another as
Marx had predicted but rather there is more and more cooperation between such states especially
among liberal democracies gives more credence to Liberalism over Marxism.
Liberals believe that all those who enter a free market system will prosper and benefit. They
believe that if people adhere to liberal tenets by dropping protectionist barriers to trade and
adopting a laissez faire economy, allowing the invisible hand to take its course, it will increase
collaboration between states and contain conflict and war. This will occur as there is an increase
in economic interdependence through trade, and/ or through the increase of international
institutions that help manage conflict and thus increase efficiency and prosperity. Liberals
believe that International institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the
4
International Monetary Fund are helping states overcome selfish behavior by cooperating and
foregoing immediate gain for the greater benefit of all. Marxists, particularly the branch that call
themselves ‘dependency theorists’, see international institutions as “instruments of domination”
and believe that such institutions may be helping keep the third world countries suppressed and
dependent. Marxists see capitalism as the root of the problem of “crippling stratification in
international systems” (Mingst 92). Marxism may be a dying theory but its offshoot ‘dependency
theory’ seems to be gaining ground and “resonance in the developing countries of the world”
(Kaufman, Parker, Howell and Doty 535).
SUSAN STRANGE
Marxists are not the only ones that believe that the dominant theories of liberalism and
realism do not incorporate economics enough into their core theory. Susan Strange, in her book
“The Retreat of the State” offers a refreshing departure from orthodox theories like realism and
liberalism and formulates an alternative theory that is more in line with modern times. She
throws most of the main tenets of realism to the side and offers a complete new way of seeing
power forces in global politics. For example unlike realism and liberalism, she contends that the
state is no longer the dominant actor on the world stage, the domination of territory has been
replaced with the need to dominate markets, and the economy plays a much larger role in world
politics than theorists in the past have given credit for.
She sees the study of the relations solely between unitary states as outdated. Realist tenets for
example, emerged at a time when there was much conflict and bloodshed in the world. People
felt allegiance to the land they were on and the ethnic, cultural and linguistic ties that bound them
5
to these socially constructed borders. There was nothing more significant than the protection of
their sovereign territory and therefore their number one priority was to maintain security and
expand power and influence in the world through the accumulation of territory and resources.
Naturally the state became the key dominant actor in world politics. Times have changed and
Strange argues that there is a “retreat of the state”. She says states have lost legitimacy because
people no longer have confidence in their leaders and are in contempt of them and their
bureaucracies (Strange 3). “Authority over the people and their activities have weakened and
their power” is asymmetrical (Ibid, xi). She says states no longer satisfy their basic
responsibilities of creating wealth, providing security, dispensing justice and permitting freedom
or autonomy. There are new security threats that go beyond state borders like economic and
cultural issues (Ibid, 34). This explains the shift from inter-state wars for territorial
aggrandizement and resource extraction from the past to an increase in civil wars today including
ethnic and religious conflicts.
She diverts us away from the simple field of “inter-national” relations and towards
“International Political Economy” because of the importance of economics in power, politics and
the interaction between global actors on the world stage. “Competition for world market shares
has replaced competition for territory (Ibid, 9). She says “where states were once the masters of
markets, now it is the markets which, on many crucial issues, are the masters of the state” (Ibid
4).
Not only does she believe in the “retreat of the state” because of fundamental and rapid
changes in the finance sector and technology but other powerful actors that are affecting foreign
policy and shaping world politics, namely global markets, transnational corporations and other
6
less talked about players like drug cartels mafia, and terrorist organizations. These “others”
should not be looked at as substandard forces of power but rather as running parallel with states.
If anything they could even be leading in power and importance. According to Strange “the shift
from state to markets has actually made political players of the TNC’s (Ibid, 44). TNC’s can be
viewed as political authorities (Ibid 43). While realists may have seen other states as a threat in
the past, today non state actors can prove to be a real threat to states such as transnational
organized crime. Most advanced liberal democracies today are much less concerned about being
attacked by another state than fearing terrorism within their borders.
Susan Strange offers an alternative definition of power. Power, is not defined from a realist’s
perspective in terms of capabilities and resources which they see as necessary to satisfy their self
interest and ensure security vis-à-vis other states in a balance of power. Power is not “tied to
resources” according to Strange because it does not always translate to power. She provides
examples how larger powers with more “capabilities” have lost in conflicts to smaller states.
Rather, Strange sees power as “the ability of a person or group of persons so to affect outcomes
that their preferences take precedence over the preferences of others” (Ibid, 17). This could be on
purpose through a weak form of power like coercion or the stronger ‘unintended power’. She
defines the ‘unintended’ kind of power as “structural power” where one has influence over
another simply by “being there” (Ibid, 26). She uses the United States as an example of having
structural authority and thus much authority and influence over outcomes of others. She casts
away realist’s ‘hegemonic stability theorists’ and ‘declinists’ who suggest that the U.S.’s decline
as world hegemon will have catastrophic affects on stability. She says that the U.S., no matter
what, is currently the most powerful among all nations and still has unyielding power. She
7
provides the example of the US’s structural power in the war in Yugoslavia. Whether they
exercised power unilaterally or through NATO, their influence was “the final determinant of
outcomes” in the war (Ibid, 27). The US does what it wants, when it wants, and little other
powers has much influence to stand in its way.
CONCLUSION:
Alternative theorists Marx and Strange have questioned the traditional study of international
relations including who the dominant actors are on the world stage, the nature of conflict,
interactions between world actors and where priorities lie for citizens of the world.
Both Marx and Strange incorporate the field of economics as a core part of their explanation for
IR, something they believe liberals and realists did not consider enough in their own theory. The
economic influence over ‘have’ and ‘have not’ states is central to Marx’s basic understanding of
how and why societies organize in the manner they do. For Susan Strange also “IR has always
been about people and how they organize themselves” not only the interaction between states
(Week 9 notes).
Marxism has failed to prove its predictions although its offshoot theories still play a role in IR
today. Susan Strange accounts for many actors that did not exist or play a role in the past, but
one day, her theory will also be outdated. New paradigms are essential with the evolution of
time and new actors on the world stage. Cox famously and wisely said “theory is always for
someone and for some purpose”. Therefore who is to say whether one theory is better or more
accurate than another? The answer depends greatly from what lens one looks through.
8
Works Cited
Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, & Owens, Patricia. (2008). The Globalization of World Politics.
UK: Oxford University Press, USA.
Kaufman, J. Daniel, Parker, M. Jay, Howell, V. Patrick, Doty R. Grant. (2004). Understanding
International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc, USA.
Mingst, A. Karen. (2008). Essentials of International Relations (4th ed.). W. W. Norton & Co
Inc, NY.
Strange, Susan. (1996). The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World Economy.
Cambridge University Press, UK.
9