Marxist Theory and the Gramscian Theory - Essay Example

Introduction Marxist theory presupposes that the international system is essentially made up of capitalist elements seeking to accumulate more capital. Adherents of this school of thought claim that the economy is the most important determinant of international relations and other perspectives such as state cooperation or state conflict are not relevant. In this theory, it is assumed that there is a need to emancipate the working class who are constantly oppressed by controllers of resources. Therefore, the struggle for equality throughout the world is what drives the international system. This theory is important in international relations owing to the fact that it is the only one that places emancipation and equality as a priority issue. Also, Marxism is essential in bringing out an in depth analysis of why the world is unfair through a systemic foundation. (Wallerstain, 1996) Marxist thought also tackles development and why it occurs at minimal levels in certain countries. Aside from that, this theory of international relations also deals with unfairness and inequality – all aspects that are scarcely addressed by other theories. Gramscian theory was derived from the Marxist school of thought, although there are a number of things that make it unique. According to Gramsci, society tends to engage in passive revolution and he cites several examples throughout the world that have participated in this. For instance, in the nineteenth century, Italy was unified through piecemeal efforts carried out by an elite group. The latter had not garnered mass support from the bourgeoisie and this made their efforts at development a mere reflection of what was going on in the international arena. Besides that, Gramsci also asserts that the developments associated with Ford in US industry during the early twentieth century was actually a passive revolution that reflected common international notions especially those ones in Europe that supported economic individualism as well as free enterprise societies. All these examples / arguments illustrate the fact that there was a national and international amalgamation where social and political transformations occurring in various nations were caused by and also occurred against the backdrop of international forces. Gramsci strongly believed that one ought to study international relations through nationalistic lenses since the former are created by the latter. However, he also argued that there must be a revolution that should occur throughout the world in order to overcome global capitalist systems. Each nation has its own elements of developments or lack of it; consequently, they all have to look for ways in which they can engage in revolutionary struggles at nationalistic levels. Gramscian theory also postulates that in order for leaders to maintain their positions of power in the world system, then they must consistently seek for approval from their subordinates in what Gramsci called hegemony. While the concept of hegemony was initially created in order to analyse the Italian context, it can be seen that this concept could still be applied to international relations. The latter author claimed that during the nineteenth century the French managed to maintain perpetual domination in their continent owing to their application of hegemony in Europe. (Gill & Law, 2003) Both the Marxist school of thought and the Gramscian theory adhere to the notion that social factors have a large role to play in international relations because they decide how state power is manifested. In other words, both these theories claim that class relations are relevant in international relations. Nonetheless, for Gramsci, the point of departure from Marxism arises when he claims that nation states are crucial sites of struggle. In this regard, Marxist thought conforms to the notion that class struggles occur throughout the world between the world capitalist holders and their subordinates. However, Gramsci felt that these struggles were not uniform throughout the world and were reflections of societies prevalent in society which more often than not were determined by the kind of state that an individual lived in. (Smith, 1994) Gramscian theory also departs from Marxism because the latter adhered to strict materialist interpretation of state relations. In other words, it assumed that human thought was in fact directly affected by their underlying material circumstances alone. On the other hand, Gramsci held that material circumstances were mere manifestations of ideological power and ideological biases. In explaining this, he asserted that most international theorists tend to ignore the social aspects of these relations thus reflecting the fact that most of those adherents are actually content with prevailing social power and do not want to change it by analyzing it in state theory. In the Marxist school of thought, it is argued that the world capitalist state is the biggest problem in international relations and that this must be changed in order to tackle the problems of inequality or injustice. Similarly, Gramscian theory also conforms to this belief – that society must be continually committed to change. He affirmed that the prevailing social order was quite unfair and that social relations must frequently change on order to make society better. In Marxist theories, it often argued that the elite tend to seize power first and then look of ways of controlling the state from above. On the other hand, in Gramscian theory, it asserted that social relations must begin from the bottom up. In other words, he claimed that it would be fatal for holders of power to strictly adhere to economism without necessarily getting consent from the bourgeoisie who were being controlled by the former group. In this regard, he cited Turin struggles in the early twentieth century in which several class alliances occurred against capitalism and the elite because they seized power without necessarily considering the latter group. In this regard, he claims that one must constantly and consistently involve the bourgeoisie by actively garnering approval from them. There is therefore the element of moral as well intellectual leadership in Gramscian theory as opposed to Marxism. Analysts however assert that this element is what brings out Marxist strength over Gramscian thought in international relations. They claim that an emphasis on hegemony or the process of seeking continuous consent from the dominated class undermines the use of force that is synonymous with the coercive rule of the elite. Marxism on the other hand adheres to the notion that the ruled are often powerless or weak such that they are forced to accept existing power relations without changing them. (Hofman, 2001) When applied to international relations, Gramscian theory emphasis the role that US led hegemony has played in creating the current world order. Here, Gramsci claimed that as early as the nineteenth century, the US attempted to seek approval form its European allies in order to create a world order dominated by that latter entity both militarily and economically. In fact, it can be argued that because Europe did not consent to this world order later on in the nineteen forties (after the war) then it became necessary for the US to accept this and tone down their expectations of an international free trade system led by them. Marxist and Gramscian theories both propel the notion of class struggle, capitalist domination as well as continuous change. While the latter system may be very effective in understanding historical occurrences, I believe that it has not lost its relevance today and that international relations can be better understood through assertions synonymous to Marxism capitalism. Marxism and Gramscian theory in reference to globalization Globalisation and global governance Globalisation can be defined as the phenomenon by which national borders become more irrelevant as a result of opening up to the world through capital flows and the transfer of technology from producers to consumers. Through globalisation, the world continually becomes homogenised as various groups tend to identify with a number of brands that are common to them. Global convergence occurs when the gap between various nations and groups reduces. This is spearheaded by continual flow of resources. For the latter to occur, then there must be institutions that regulate world trade. Also, global convergence is propagated by the need for continual development which is usually associated with more trade. Usually, what occurs is that the nation state ceases to gain significance. There are several groups often labelled as anti-capitalists who claim that the phenomenon of global convergence is limited to international relations theories and that depiction of this phenomenon in person is a very rare occurrence. In this regard, the latter groups have utilised Marxist explanations to claim that global capitalism has prevented the reduction of these gaps. (Robinson, 2004) Global governance refers to the process by which the implementers of global capital such as the World Trade Organisation, the World Bank and multinationals exert their influence in the political, economic and social realms of various countries of the world. This is normally manifested through their decision making abilities in those countries and their abilities to change their policies to reflect their wishes for those countries. Through global governance, it is possible for leaders of certain countries (especially those ones in the underdeveloped world) to loose control of their populace as they are forced to succumb to the will of advanced capitalist nations where the multinationals emanate from. Marxism on globalisation According to Marxists, their understanding of globalisation is that there is division of labour created by this concept of world trade. This may not necessarily be a bad thing for all the countries of the world because the poor may get an opportunity to advance while the developed nations may further develop. However, the reality on the ground is that most poor countries are being taken advantage of. In fact they have become the working class that Marx referred to in his theory. These countries are perpetuated into more and more poverty thus being trapped in an endless cycle. (Morton, 2003) Capitalism within the global arena is a reality and it has led to all the destructions that its founder Karl Marx had asserted when conceptualising his theory. Now more and more underdeveloped countries are witnessing the destruction of their local industries in order to pave way for the new industries from developed nations. There is plenty of injustice in this system owing to the fact that most capitalists take up resources from underdeveloped nations and then exploit the world market to get consumers. Consequently, these poor nations are placed in a do or die situation where they possess very little say in determining what will become of their nations’ economies. Therefore, through capitalism, a working class has been established with no national boundaries. Multinationals owned by the elite have created greater communication networks and better production thus resulting in a different and new category of individuals that are interlinked. (Hill & Turner, 2004) There are several statistics and figures that support Marxist notions on globalisation. For instance a study of the GDP growth rates of the world carried out by Madison Research between 1820 and 1997 illustrated that in advanced countries, their GDPs rose 19 times within this period. On the other hand, poor countries only recorded 5.4 increments. This has led many Marxists to solidify their assertions that globalisation has not delivered the promises that its proponents claimed. In this regard, the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing with time. In fact, the World Development Report revealed that average incomes in developed countries are thirty seven times higher than in poor countries for the past two decades. Statistics further indicate that the numbers of people living on less than a dollar a day has increased by fifty percent over the past decade. In fact, almost half the world population falls under this category. Therefore, capitalism has furthered production but has increased poverty. The Marxist school of thought in international relations therefore treats globalisation negatively because of its major component; capitalism has been contributed further to the oppression of the poor. Exploitation is one of the chief concerns in Marxist theories as proponents usually claim that controllers of the means of production often provide inadequate and unfair compensation for the services that members possess. This notion is a harsh reality in the phenomenon of globalisation. A number of western based companies have relocated their production sectors to other parts of the world such as India and China. This is largely because minimum wage costs are much lower in these countries than they are in their own. Besides that, corporate governance issues are not taken that seriously in such nations. For example, issues such as child labour in clothing factories have been recorded in newspaper outlets. Some engage in sweatshop labour while others put their workers through excessive working hours without necessarily giving them compensation for their efforts. In the end, globalisation has provided a lee way for capitalists to expand their wealth while spreading their oppressive systems into different parts of the world. Therefore, nation states no longer have the influence that they had on the elite because of global capital. This matter is indicated by the fact that most multinationals are headquartered in certain nations but over seventy percent of their assets are located in non HQ countries. For example, Ford is rooted in the UK but eighty percent of its assets are located in the United States. The reason behind this is that most of these multinationals are looking for technology and manpower that will be cheap to come by. The nation state is supposed to protect such manpower but through globalisation this is not possible as the multinationals always abscond the accountability expected by their mother countries. (Maclean, 2007) A number of issues are rising within the global arena to further these assertions out by Marxist capitalists. There are plenty of instances within the international arena that point towards the concentration of capital towards a few entities which more often than not are multinationals. Taking the example of General Motors which is one of the biggest corporations of their world – there are roughly sixty eight million employees under its wing. This company has been making millions of dollars from sales around the world and in a number of scenarios, these profits can be equated to the Gross National Products of a number of nations. (Bello, 2002) In support of the latter notion is the fact that Direct Foreign Investment has grown much more than actual trade. In fact, statistics carried out about a decade ago indicate that foreign investment by multinationals grew three times more than world trade. Also, it has been asserted that about eighty percent of all the trade that goes on in the world is controlled by multinationals. In fact, critics of globalisation further claim that most of what is branded as trade is actually an amalgamation of the transactions that go on between branches of the same multinationals. However, the growth of trade among the multinationals would not have been possible if transport development had not occurred or if communications were hampered especially through IT. In fact, it is the growth of these two sectors that have made it easier for multinationals to locate the most convenient places to carry out their businesses. Globalisation is therefore a very real threat to the conditions of the working class who have to struggle day to day to improve their living standards. Gramscian theory on globalisation There are several links that pro Gramsci analysts have made between Gramscian theory and globalisation and these analyses are normally founded on four major premises. The first is when hegemony is associated with domination of the global arena. In international relations, there are several examples of hegemony and domination throughout history such as when the United States dominated the west during the cold war or when the Soviet Union dominated its Eastern European counterparts through hegemony. The second link is when hegemony is regarded as state based. Here, a particular nation anchors the international capitalist system by enforcement and imposition of rules. Examples include British or US hegemony. Third, globalisation and Gramscian theory can also be analysed through consensual hegemony. In other words, international relations can be understood by looking at globalisation through consent rooted in culture and leadership. Lastly, the latter link may be understood through leadership rooted in certain historical blocs associated with a particular world order. For instance, the United States got international hegemony after Wold War Two because of Fordist structures coupled with Keynesian policies that were propagated by the US capitalist class. (Holsti, 1999) There are specific elements that form the area of focus in this particularly essay as all cannot be addressed at once. Nonetheless, there are a number of instances in which these various links intertwine. Gramscian adherents claim that globalisation has created transnational class formation through capitalism. Here, regional and national economies have been changed and integrated into an international financial and production system. The transnational class is increasingly detached from nation states. This means that hegemony has also been transnationalised as well. Analysts claim that globalisation has brought about a different level of class fractionation that has been included in the international class system. Gramsci often argues that there is a relationship between power and production. He further adds that social relations are rooted to these modes of production and there is eventually a situation in which the social relations spill to various nations thus creating a certain world order. However, this theorist claims that any nation’s leaders are able to maintain their system because they often go beyond their selfish interests and exert intellectual as well as moral leadership on their respective groups. Therefore, these leaders tend to make compromises with the governed so as to create certain social blocs that eventually become historical blocs. (Robinson, 2004) Therefore, the same argument can be extended to understand globalisation in the concept of international relations. There are three major issues that are perpetuating domination through globalisation and these are summarised as: common social institutions, common ideas and common social relations. Hegemony is occurring in the international arena because the spread of globalisation has brought with it certain infrastructural aspects that are synonymous to different nation states. It has also spearheaded the spread of common ideas that promote free trade or world trade in general. The overall result is a hegemonic system in which domination of the world’s working class is being done by certain types of groups. It should be noted that the groups do not just refer to certain nations in general. There are a number of entities associated with the US or Britain but they have formed the transnational elite that surpass their nation based interests. The US notion of empire can also be argued to support Gramscian concepts on globalisation. The US can be understood along these lines as it has been an economic powerhouse for the world for a long time. However, when it engaged in the US led invasion against Iraq and Afghanistan, then other countries such as those ones from East Asia began being noticed. One can argue that the latter countries became a force to reckon with by the US. However, there was a still interaction of East Asian corporations with others though trade thus furthering the phenomenon of globalisation. The US concept of power can best be understood by placing the issue of capitalism in context. There have been dominant groups in the international arena that have been interested in solving the problems of capitalism and these pressures have been manifested within the US thus necessitating the need to gain consensus from the agents of capitalism. This is the reason why some experts have asserted that the world’s capital empire is located within the US. (Hill & Turner, 2004) Conclusion Marxism propagates the notion that there is an elite that dominates as well oppresses the minority. Through this theory, it has been possible to understand the reasons behind globalisation and its results. First of all, Marxists assert that globalisation is perpetuated by the need to further the interest of controllers of resources. In the international context, these are multinationals. The overall result of this global capitalism is an increased number of working class members who are struggling to earn a living. Aside from that, globalisation has widened the gap between the rich and poor countries as most of these multinationals belong to the former mentioned countries. Gramsci derived his theory from Marxism since he asserted that the working class are frequently oppressed by the elite, however, in order for the elite to maintain power, then they need to get consensus from the governed group. When applied to globalisation, it can be said that Gramscian theory assists in understanding its effects. For example, it places the US concept of power in context explaining that the US has been at the centre of global capital owing to its ability to garner consent by agents of capitalism. Therefore, Marxism capitalism and the Gramscian theory have contributed towards an understanding of the impacts that globalisation has among stakeholders and also the effects the issues that perpetuate globalisation. References Morton, A. (2003). “Social forces in the struggle against hegemony.” Rethinking Marxism. 15(2):160 Robisnon, W. (2004). “A theory of global capitalism: class, production and the state transanational states.” Journal of Theory and Society. 30 (2): 58 Bello, W. (2002). “Notes for a new economy.” Class and race 43(4): 38 Wallerstain, I. (1996). Interstate structure in the modern world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Holsti, K. (1999). Hegemony and Diversity in International relations theory. Boston: Unwin and Allen Publishers Hofman, S. (2001). “International relations in American Social science.” International Studies Journal. 106 (3): 47 Maclean, J. (2007). “Marxism in International relations.” International Studies Journa.l 10(3): 57 Gill, S. & Law, D. (2003). Global political economics. London: Routledge Hill, S. & Turner, B. (2004). The dominant ideology thesis. London: McMillan Smith, M. (1994). “The US and a changing European Community.” Journal of International Affairs. 68(1): 10 Read More

 

Read More