ALTERNATIVES TO REALISM
the neo-Marxist perspective
professor timothy c. lim
california state university, los angeles
tclim@calstatela.edu
the neo-Marxist perspective
an opening question
is Marxism dead?
(is it, in other words, a dead theory? one "
that died with the collapse of the Soviet "
Union and with China’s embrace "
of capitalism?)
before answering, let’s consider what "
one of our authors has to say …
the neo-Marxist perspective
Walt’s view
Stephen Walt has this to say: Marxism and neo-Marxism were “largely
discredited before the Cold War ended. The extensive history of
economic and military cooperation among the advanced industrial
powers showed that capitalism did not inevitably lead to conflict. The
bitter schisms that divided the communist "
world showed that socialism did not "
always promote harmony.” according
to Walt,
Marxism
" is dead.
so,
Do you agree?
the neo-Marxist perspective
Bova’s view
“… stripped of both its expectation for the victory of the Communist
cause and its role as the philosophical foundation for real-world
Communist regimes, neo-Marxism is still seen as a "
relevant alternative view of how world politics operates…. "
In certain important respects, the neo-Marxist perspective"
shares some assumptions with realism. Both agree that"
world politics is inherently conflictual”
continued"
the neo-Marxist perspective
Bova’s view
“Moreover, both … see that conflict is rooted in certain structural
characteristics of the international and world system … [and] both
perspectives share the realist’s skepticism toward liberal,
constructivist, and feminist optimism that cooperation … "
can replace conflict as the central feature of world politics”"
let’s consider one last view …
the neo-Marxist perspective
Halliday’s view
  historical materialism (i.e., Marxism) is not dead, but its more
“vulgar” assumptions have been discredited
“yet to recognise this is not to conclude that in its broader sense "
the approach crystallized in historical materialism has no relevance: it
may indeed constitute an important "
contribution to interpreting, and, where "
both possible and desirable, prescribing "
for the contemporary world” the neo-Marxist perspective
Halliday’s view
  to properly understand the significance of historical materialism we
must “detach” it from its overly deterministic and utopian companions
  we must also disconnect Marxist analysis from the “vulgar polemic” of
communist regimes who espoused certain “standard, formulaic”
readings of Marxism
  and we must understand that what "
existed the Soviet Union, China, and "
elsewhere was not Marxism at all, but "
something quite different. this all leads"
to an obvious question …
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? starting points
1
Marxism is a theory of history: it’s a theory of how history "
unfolds and of the primary forces that shape history
2 Marxism is a theory of capitalism: it’s a theory about "
the dynamics, logic and implications of capitalism
3
4
Marxism is a quintessentially structural theory, but unlike realism, "
it is a historical structural theory, nor is it wholly deterministic
Marxism is not a theory of international relations per se, but it can "
tell us a lot about the motivations and actions of states
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? a theory of history
Marxism’s theory of history is premised on "
the concept of historical materialism
basic meaning: “history” is defined "
or shaped by the material (or economic) "
basis of society; moreover, as the "
material basis of society changes, "
so does history
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? a theory of history
more. historical materialism is based on a fundamental “fact”: in "
order for human beings to survive from generation to generation,"
it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the "
material requirements of life
this basic insight has profound implications: for one, it "
tells us that societies are governed by the forces "
of production
key implication: those who control the forces "
of production, control society (more on this later)
the neo-Marxist perspective
what marxism is: more on history
  history is a movement from one historical "
stage (or era) to another
  each historical era is different, each has its own
dynamic and logic based on the dominant "
mode of production: primitive society was one stage,
feudalism another, and …
the neo-Marxist perspective
… capitalism is the latest
stage of historical
development
capitalism, however, is also
just a stage, which means
that it, too, will come to an
end—eventually
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? a theory of history
an important implication
  Marx also argued that, with a particular historical era, material forces
directly shape every significant aspect of human society, from
culture, to the political system, to the legal and judicial systems, to
the educational system, and so on
  this view is encapsulated in marx’s concept of base and
superstructure
keep in mind: in this conception,"
the base is more important than
the superstructure. the next slide
provides a bit more information …
Superstructure Base the neo-Marxist perspective
the educa)onal system of capitalism is designed to produce a mass of good, disciplined “worker bees” religion is the “opium of the masses”; designed to keep workers docile and obedient “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same )me its ruling intellectual force.” “the oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which par)cular representa)ves of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them” the jus)ce system protects “private property” first; police, courts serve the interests of the dominant class the neo-Marxist perspective
most importantly, the base (in "
capitalism) creates a particular
type of political authority—the
modern state—that is focused on
protecting, defending, and
promoting the interests of "
the dominant class "
within society: the "
capitalist class
now let’s consider "
Marx’s theory of"
capitalism …
the neo-Marxist perspective
what
is Marxism? a theory of capitalism
Marx’s views on are not as simple as is generally thought; indeed, while
he was extremely critical of capitalism, in one respect, marx might also
have said …
I
"
capitalism!
how is this possible?
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? a theory of capitalism
Marx didn’t really love capitalism, of course, but he understood that
capitalism was the most productive and efficient economic system
in human history …
key point: it was capitalism’s productive capacity, in Marx’s eyes, that
would make communism possible, for communism requires a
material base that would allow for the emergence of a society based
on the principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each
according to his needs”
Only capitalism is productive
enough to fulfill all of our
needs, to make it possible for
an equalitarian society. This is
why I love capitalism! the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? a theory of capitalism
yet, while marx understood capitalism as tremendously"
productive, he also understood that it had certain inherent flaws and
contradictions that made it unsuitable as the ultimate foundation for
human society
what were these flaws?
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? a theory of capitalism
  the most salient flaw: while tremendously productive, "
capitalism is unavoidably oppressive and exploitative
  the oppression and exploitation of capitalism are "
most clearly seen in one of its most salient "
manifestation: the division of society into distinct "
social groups or classes
  marx talked mainly about the division between"
_____________
capitalists and ____________
workers modern capitalism is a bit more complicated, as the
following illustration shows …
… combined with notion of base and superstructure
another view of class divisions in capitalist society
the neo-Marxist perspective
what is Marxism? another look
although admittedly repetitive, let’s
take a quick look at what Halliday
has to say about the historical
materialist paradigm, which he
summarized in four themes
the neo-Marxist perspective
the historical materialist paradigm
four themes
the first theme revolves around material determination, or, more
precisely, determination by socio-economic factors
“In more simplified terms, Marx saw society as a totality,"
a composite within which each element was in a broad sense"
governed by the character and tendency of the whole. The"
central activity in any society is economic production
the neo-Marxist perspective
the historical materialist paradigm
four themes
the second theme, embodied in the very term for the paradigm itself, is
that of history, and historical determination.
“In the first instance, Marx argued that history influenced "
present behavior.” More than merely “influencing” behavior,"
Marx insisted that history fundamentally shaped our frame-"
work of action: everything we do and think is a product of"
our particular historical context—but, historical epochs,"
while long-lasting, are not permanent"
the neo-Marxist perspective
the historical materialist paradigm
four themes
the third theme of the historical materialist approach is the centrality of
classes as actors, both domestically and internationally
classes are defined, very broadly, by reference to their"
ownership and control of the means of production …. If "
within a particular state classes act to subject and control "
those less powerful than themselves, they act internationally "
to ally with groups similar to themselves when this is "
beneficial, and to compete with them be peaceful or "
military means, when rivalry is preferred"
the neo-Marxist perspective
the historical materialist paradigm
four themes
the fourth theme of the historical materialism is that of conflict and its
apogee, revolution
“Conflict is taken here to be a historical and social"
concept, pertaining to relations between different "
classes and other social groups, generated by "
differences in socio-economic positions.” Revolutions"
represent conflicts between social classes of different"
character, within particular states. the neo-Marxist perspective
the historical materialist paradigm
four themes: a summary
consider how these
themes differ from or
overlap with the realist
and liberal perspectives
  material determination
  historical determination
  centrality of classes
  centrality of conflict and revolution
the neo-Marxist perspective
the next step
historical materialism is all well and fine, but"
the real question is this: what is its relevance"
the study of world politics?
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
first, an obvious point
we have learned that the world, according to "
Marxism, is dominated by the capitalist class, "
who control not only the means of production, but "
the instruments of governance in their "
respective societies
this means … what?
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
the dominance of the capitalist class means"
that it is this class that “calls the shots” in world"
politics. the capitalist class calls the shots because"
it is this class that controls the state and all its"
agencies, including the military
to grasp Marxism’s relevance to world politics, "
then, one must recognized that much of what "
happens in the world, domestically and "
internationally, is an expression of the interests "
and power of the dominant classes the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
  in this view, Marxists tell us that the "
state is a mere puppet of the dominant "
class!
  there is no such thing as the national"
interest; there is only class interest
this picture helps to illustrate the basic,
but powerful point
this cartoon provides another good illustration—again, very simplified—of the"
marxist perspective on foreign policy
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
  most contemporary marxists are careful not to reduce everything to
class interests and power
  most recognize, for example, that states are not purely instruments of
the dominant class; they acknowledge, in other words, that states
have relative autonomy
  in the complex capitalist societies of today, marxists also recognize that
class interests are rarely defined in black and white: even among
capitalists, interests can diverge in dramatic ways (in this way, "
Marxist analysis also tells us to examine intra-class struggles)
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics: another point
  Halliday tells that, at the most general level, historical "
materialism or Marxism necessarily shifts our "
attention from security to conflict
  this may sound the same as realism, but the "
context of conflict is dramatically different: in "
Marxism, conflict is not the product of anarchy, "
but that of the “market and of capitalism itself”
the lesson. to understand world politics,"
we must carefully examine the dynamics of "
capitalism and inter-capitalist conflict the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
examples. during periods of general expansion, international relations will
generally remain peaceful and stable, but during periods of economic"
crisis, the prospects for intra-class conflict"
dramatically increase "
  consider on this point, the origins of"
both World Wars … the following excerpt"
from the PBS series, Commanding Heights,"
helps to illustrate the importance of capitalist"
dynamics in world politics
two-minute excerpt from Commanding Heights. This excerpt underscores the economic
basis for the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party; it demonstrates quite convincingly the
importance of capitalist dynamics in world politics!
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
examples. in the Pacific War, capitalist "
dynamics and intra-class conflict was "
also a central, if not the central factor "
in the war between the United "
States and Japan—a point we"
discussed earlier in the quarter "
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics: the cold war
critics of Marxism also do not understand that the emergence of
ostensibly “communist” regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and
elsewhere was also a reflection of capitalist processes
simply put, “communism” was an attempt to create an alternative to capitalism.
not surprisingly this effort to create an alternative to capitalism represented
a vital threat to the dominant capitalist powers. this helps explain the
visceral reaction to “communism” in the west generally, and in the US
specifically; it also explains the extraordinary postwar alliance of capitalist
powers, the use of military power in the “third world,” and so on: all were
meant to protect the interests of western capital against any and all threats
this excerpt from Missing illustrates the role that corporate interests often play in world politics.
it demonstrates how the agencies—the CIA, the State Department, the US military—of the most
powerful capitalist country on earth respond to the beck and call of powerful corporations often at
the expense of ordinary American citizens.!
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics: more caveats
in the complex capitalist societies of today, marxists also understand that
class interests are rarely defined in black and white; thus even among
capitalists, interests can diverge in dramatic ways… this means that state policy may, at times, appear to be inconsistent
and even contradictory—it may even appear to be driven by nonclass forces (but appearances can be deceiving)
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
closing remarks
  as a theoretical framework, marxism has "
enduring significance
  Karl Marx may be dead and buried, but Marxism "
is decidedly not dead: some of its “predictions” "
were wrong, but the same could be said "
for realism and other major theories
the neo-Marxist perspective
Marxism and world politics
closing remarks
moreover, the more one looks around the world "
today, the more we find concrete examples "
to demonstrate the continuing validity of "
Marxist analysis…
consider the failure of the Soviet Union and China’s "
turn toward capitalism; the wars against Iraq; the"
seeming stability of the current “unipolar system”"
(recall: Marxists see the world as hierarchic, not"
anarchic); and so on