THE MARXIST APPROACH TO INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The field seeks to understand; the roots of war as well as the maintenance of peace, the characteristics and implementation of power within the international system. The evolving nature of state and non-state actors who are involved in international decision-making. The study and implementation of international relations in the modern world has many valuable reasons. For example, international relations upholds successful trade policies between different countries. Also, it supports travel that is related to tourism, business, and immigration and offers people numerous chances to enhance their lives (Davenport 2013). Nonetheless, in the modern sphere of international relations, the division tends to exist between the capitalist nations and the socialist nations. In addition, the non-socialist nations of the third world are also grouped under the socialist states because they experience exploitation from the capitalist nations.

Marx describes the idea of the development of capital as a global force. He believes that the development of capital is a powerful means to aid the development and growth of innovation and industry. Nonetheless, Marx states that the development of capital may be replaced by capitalism in the future. Both the working class and the industrial workers are a group that is struggling has to ensure that exploitation comes to an end. They gain their power to do this due to their ability to resist being exploited by their employers in capitalist nations. Also, they manage to resist the success achieved by the working class in the socialist nations. Besides, the working individuals of all nations are uniting based on the call granted by the Communist Manifesto.

This is an essential feature of international relations which requires an in-depth analysis in order to judge the true character of modern internationalism (Capan 2017). In equal measures, as the exploitation of people by other is being eliminated, the hostility of states by others will also be eliminated. Anti-Imperialism is another basic element of Marxism. The Marxist approach in international relations claims that the disintegration of the middle-class world order is certain. Furthermore, capitalism has come to its final stages. Therefore, militarism, wars,and armed conflicts have turned out to be the order of the day in this imperialist era (Rose 1984). Marxism also has self-determination as a basic element. This theory accepts this element as the rule of shaping the international society.

This element believes that all countries from all over the world must gain freedom in order to establish their political destiny. Therefore, the concept of self-determination by all countries is enough to provide a lasting and firm foundation to international relations. Also, the Marxists claim that all counties of the world need to coexist peacefully without subjecting other political and social systems to criticism. The postcolonial, as well as the large impoverished of the underdeveloped regions of the third world nations, comprise the periphery. These are the areas that have been responsible for the provision of raw materials like timber and minerals to enhance the core’s order. Factually, the rich industrial nations form the core. Such regions are involved in activities like manufacturing, banking, shipbuilding, technologically advanced agriculture and other activities that involve economic expansion (Gilpin 2016).

Throughout time, the core has been exploiting the periphery and gained wealth that has assisted the core regions to develop their industrial infrastructure. In the world system theory, the primary line of argument is that the dependency situation of the developing nations and regional class division are the direct consequence of the capitalist character of the world economy as well as the economic exploitation by the developed nations. Hence, for the leaders of the World System theory, the modern world system is extremely uneven because in this system the core tends to assume control over the periphery through its economic strength. Wallerstein also attempts to explain the issues of modernization and how it has had a huge impact on the world.

According to Wallerstein, even thought the performance of the global economy seems to result in a greater amount of disparities between the different types of economies, there remains a relative rather than constant relationship between the core, its periphery as well as its semi-periphery (Wallerstein 1987). For example, advances in technology, may lead to the expansion of the global economy and spark off some changes in some of the peripheral as well as semi-peripheral regions. Criticism of the Marxist Approach The Marxist approach to international relations tends to disapprove of the liberal and realist views and instead focuses on the material as well as the economic aspects. Therefore, the theory is materialistic in its angle and tends to oversee other forms of non-economic aspects of international politics.

Also, this approach attempts to describe the facts of international politics as consisting of some economic roots (Eagleton 2003). However, feminist scholars contend that the foundations of conflicts between males and females in a society are not just economic, but also patriarchal. In addition, the Marxist theory has not put enough emphasis on subjective interpretations and people’s preferences when interacting with the social world which based on the opinions of constructivists is founded on the ideas, values,and beliefs of humans. Under this approach, the transnational elites, and social classes are the primary actors of international politics. They believe that the state is a mediator of bourgeoisie and way of exploiting the proletariat. Also, they perceived the structure of international system as conflictual and based on nil game.

Therefore, the final objective is class-interest as well as to bring about revolutionary change rather than preserving a status-quo. The Marxist approach to international relations has faced numerous criticism for different reasons,yet it remains to the most ambitious, coherent, influential and systematic approach to international politics. Brewer, A. Marxist theories of imperialism: a critical survey. Routledge. Buecker, R. Karl Marx's Conception of International Relations. Davenport, A. Marxism in IR: Condemned to a realist fate?. European Journal of International Relations, 19(1), pp. Eagleton, T. Marxism and literary criticism. Hatto, R. Theories of International Relations. Daedalus, 106(3), pp. Hirst, P. Q. , &Megginson, W. L. International Relations and Sovereign Wealth Funds’ Political Value: Evidence from a Quasi-Natural Experiment. Wake Forest Law Review, 52(3), 857–888. Retrieved from http://165.