Marxism and IPE

8/11/2019 Marxism and IPE

1/6

Introduction

Marxism study within the jurisdictions of international Political Economics (IPE) was to

a large extent limited to the study of the ideologies of the soviet state. This was until the collapse

of the Soviet Union in 1991 where it was referred to as the Marxism-Leninism ideology. Since

the downfall of the Soviet Union, the renaissance of the intellectual tradition regarding Marxist

international politics might be in a way paradoxical. To many, the Soviet Union downfall was

the be all and endall to emancipatory socialist projects around the world. (Anievas, 2010)

with some of the largely renown political commentators saying that what was being witnessed

was not just the completion of the cold war, but it was the end of history per se (Fukuyana,

1992). Nevertheless, the resurrection of interest in Marxism ideologies within the discipline of

IPE tracks a key efflorescence in adding knowledge to the understanding of IPE. A gap has

emerged for the revival of different forms of Marxism that are no longer a hostage to the

ideologies Soviet state or any connections therein.

This essay therefore pursues to argue an alternative way to the understanding of IPE. This

has been a major problem with conventional international politics that describes it as inadequate

eclectic combination of theoretical perspectives and analytic methods (Bieler & Morton, 2003).

It is for this reason that Marxist ideology comes in. The essay will highlight how Marxs critique

to the political economy enhances an understanding of IPE.

Structuralism is rooted in Marxist analysis though not restricted to it. It analyses the IPE

issues mostly in terms of how class interests, classes and the society in general is shaped by the

prevailing economic configurations of society. Structuralism is mostly associated with the

analysis methods employed by most sociologists. Open Marxism is Karl Marx theory used to

explain and provide an in depth analysis of Marxs political economy. To understand the


2/6

contributions of structuralism to the IPE, open Marxism argues beginning at the social

production relations. Placing importance on the examination of capital accumulation, class and

the state would bring about the separation of the market and the state as misleading, thus

expanding the inference to take into consideration as Burnham, 1994 highlights state-civil

society market relations are differentiated though not associated with the form of capitalists

social relations of production. (Burnham, 2001).

Marx asserts that the state under the capitalist system has a set of principles in the civil

society in for of religion, private property, judiciary and the family which separates them into

different classes. Consequently, there is a separation of the state and the civil society which

now become very distinctively identifiable. This encourages the mystification of the powers of

the state to the extent that group identities are condensed to individual elements (Anievas, 2010).

This results into the public and private circles being split such that the individuals are led by their

own self-interests into forming social contracts, which form the basis of the civil society while

the exploitation of class is put aside in order to give conclusive status to abstract social

responsibility (Rupert, 2007). The public thus becomes connected with individual self-rights and

private self-interests thus disabling individuals as this complicates and twists the real historical

likelihoods for social self-determination (Anievas, 2010). Individuals under the capitalist system

of governance become socially empowered to the extent of having the determination of changing

themselves and the entire world. They also start to pursue private needs and wants.

To this extent, notions like security are affirmed on the preservation of the freedoms pf

individuals and as Rupert (2007), quotes private interests within civil society separate from state

intervention (Rupert, 2007). Moreover, individuals social lives become a happening to

individuals and not a collective manner of living (Rupert, 2007). This is one way in which the


3/6

Marxist/ structuralism provides and insight to the IPE. Here, individuals are able to identify the

capitalist social interactions as universal, deterministic and natural.

The separation of economics and politics distorts the analysis of globalization and the

state. The mainstream methodologies tend to define globalization in terms of the state and the

market which results into the state losing its sovereignty in an outward connection to

globalization (Burnham, 2001), which in turn separates itself from the state. Consequently, the

disconnection of the states into national states embraces an irregular fashion together with

capital internationalization (Burnham, 2001). Open Marxism identifies the revolution of the

capital global existence as a defining aspect. Burnham (2001) asserts that it is the

contradictions of feudal and post feudal productions that brought about the revolution of both the

state form and the world market and not trade.

The state is understood to be a form of class relation that institutes the global capitalist

relations (Anievas, 2010). This means that the capitalist system is a global relation situated on

the workers struggles with the state in form of national struggle. Constant instabilities and crisis

arise as a result of production confinement, consumption control, labor commodification and

work directive struggles. According to Rupert (2007), this process is called the universalization

of capitalist social relations and an example is highlighted in the book after Bretton-Woods

system collapsed. A profitability decline and revolt in the world market, monetary elasticity

being unregulated has led to a significant increase in the world monetary reserves, 90% being

inconvertible forex and the bond market topping $33 trillion in comparison to $1 trillion in the

70s (Burnham, 2001). This is a relevant example where structuralism explains the IPE.

Another extent to which the structuralism/Marxist theory provides an insight to IPE is in

the way the theory highlights the relationship between the civil society and the state as systems


4/6

of social associations of capitalist production. Capitalism doesnt have production powers when

viewed as a thing but when viewed as a social relation capitalism becomes productive as

antagonisms reproduction, accumulation and exploitation (Anievas, 2010). This becomes the

antagonism between labor and capital (Anievas, 2010).

The state is the owner of the means of production while the public are the workers. The

characteristics of such an economy are characterized by the commodity form, specificity of

value form, capital form and money form (Rupert, 2007). It is further characterized by the

political enforcement of extraction of surplus and exploitation, appropriation of surplus and the

exploitation evidenced in the capitalist economy.

The central point of the Marxian economy is the labor theory of value and wage

exploitation. The labor power is defined as ones own ability to produce goods whose value is

superior to that of the labor power. The difference is the surplus value. Positioning the individual

as a worker, stripped of all her qualities subjects her to a condition that separates labor from her,

as the capitalistsencounter of the weak and poor worker as an abstract worker which

presupposes a historic process (Burnham, 2001). Marx later argues that people constitute the

state and the socially existence of individuals within the state comprises their relation and

participation of the state. This then begs the question as to what is really peculiar of the social

relations under capitalist production that brings about the constitution and separation of the

state and the market as separate within the same social relations (Rupert, 2007).


5/6

Conclusion

The Marxist/ structuralism approach desists from creating an association between the

state and the market; instead it views the state as fetishized while the market is viewed as a

technical ground where the external forces of the state intervene. By reading Marxist ideology

and critique of the political economy with an open and critical mind, the IPE is understood

comprehensively.

The struggle between classes of labor and capital where capital and means of production

lies with the state while labor lies with the expatriates, produces some crisis levels manifested at

the state level as low productivity, crisis in balance of payments and fiscal crisis(Bieler &

Morton, 2003). The capitalists social relations make sure that these crises are endemic, thus

dynamic throughout the social world. National states which are a form of capitalist social

relations are not merely affected by globalization (Bieler & Morton, 2003). but are a part of the

crisis. The bad blood between capital and labor has continued with the new level of intensity and

instability in terms of the reorganization of the global political framework since the downfall of

the Bretton Woods in the 1970s (Burnham, 2001).

The Structuralism/ Marxist ideology has achieved a significant accomplishment by

highlighting the components of categories through and in the growth of a social world ridden by

crises. This has been specifically seen in the examination of the stateas a part of worldwide

production social relations.


6/6

REFERENCES

Anievas, A. (2010).Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism. London:

Routledge.

Bieler, A. & Morton, A. (2003). Globalization, the state and class struggle: a Critical Economy

engagement with Open Marxism. The British Journal of Politics & International

Relations, 5(4), 467-499.

Burnham, P. (2001). Marx, International Political Economy and Globalization. Capital & Class,

25 (3), 103-112.

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Rupert, M. (2007). Marxism and critical theory. International relations theories:Discipline and

diversity, 148-165.

Marxism and IPE

Documents

Transcript of Marxism and IPE