International Relations: Historical Materialism

Using Baylis Chapter 8

How do Marxists theorize the relationship between the state and capital? What are the international consequences of this?

In order to explore how Marxists theorize the relationship between the state and capital this assignment will focus on two strands of contemporary Marxist thought; world-systems theory & gramscianism, and their ideas on the aforementioned relationship. The international consequences of this relationship will then be evaluated.

Marxists see capitalism as a distinct dimension of the international system that conditions the operations of states. Because of this, capital is given relative autonomy separate to that of the state. Marxists also believe that in our capitalist society, capital is controlled through the private ownership of the means of production.

According to World-Systems Theory, (a branch of contemporary Marxist thinking), capitalism has entered a new and final stage with the development of monopoly capitalism (Lenin). Under monopoly capitalism, Wallerstein fits states into a three-tier structure; core, periphery & semi-periphery. Surplus extraction occurs between the core and the periphery, which is naturally exploitative towards the peripheries. This is because surplus capital is taken out of the periphery, and normally invested/traded between core countries, instead of being invested back into the peripheral country.

Recent Gramsican writing, especially that of Robinson, traces the emergence of a ‘transnational state’, existing alongside a more traditional ‘nation-state’. It is increasingly this transnational capitalist class, rather than any particular nation-state, that wields hegemonic power. It is through this hegemonic power that transnational states are able to disperse moral, political & cultural values to the rest of the world. An example of this would be the US, which has spread its neo-liberal & capitalist policies throughout society. For Gramscians, therefore, the transnational state has a strong tie with capital.

The consequence of capital’s autonomy and its dominant existence on the international system results in the lack of long-term stability in international relations. The exploitative nature of surplus extraction from periphery to core leads to the stagnation of development for peripheral countries, yet makes the core countries wealthier. This causes an increasing tension between the two tiers in international relations.

In conclusion, it can be seen that the relationship between the state and capital is seen by different Marxist theorists in different ways. Whilst some believe that the state doesn’t really hold any control over capital, others (like Wallerstein & Robinson) believe there is a strong link between the two.

Do classes and class struggle matter in international relations?

• For Marx, class is an important factor – society is systematically prone to class conflict.
• In capitalist society, the main struggle is between bourgeoisie & proletariat.
• WST: with the development of a core & periphery, there was no longer an automatic harmony of interests between all workers.
• New Marxist theorist Benno Teschke adopts a social property approach that examines the way in which class relations, forms of exploitation, and control of the means of production have changed in different historical epochs.
• Whichever class is on top of the class struggle dictates that states society & political system.

Notes on Baylis Chapter 8:

• Marxist theories aim to expose a deeper, underlying – indeed hidden – truth. This is that the familiar events of world politics – wars, treaties, international aid – all occur within structures which have an enormous influence on those events.
• They argue that the effects of global capitalism are to ensure that the powerful and wealthy continue to prosper at the expense of the powerless and the poor.
• Marx’s own words ‘Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality at the opposite pole’.
• Four strands of contemporary Marxist thought; (1) world-system theory, (2) Gramscianism, (3) critical theory & (4) new Marxism.
• All of the 4 theories share the view that the social world should be analyzed as a totality, & that the concern is with the materialist conception of history – processes of historical change are ultimately a reflection of the economic development of society, i.e. economic development is effectively the motor of history. Central dynamic is the tension between the means of production and relations of production that together form the economic base of a given society.
• Marxists reject the notion that globalization is a new idea, instead it is the ‘continuation of trends that have long accompanied the expansion of capitalism’ (Chase-Dunn).

World-Systems Theory

• WST: Raul Prebisch argues that as a result of peripheral countries reliance on primary goods, they become poorer relative to the core countries due to declining ToT.
• WST: Wallerstein argues that the third tier (semi-periphery) has its own relatively vibrant indigenously owned industrial base. It provides a source of labour that counteracts any upward pressure on wages in the core. The semi-periphery also plays a vital role in stabilizing the political structure of the world-system. The three zones of the world economy are linked together in an exploitative relationship in which wealth is drained away from the periphery to the centre.
• WST: Wallerstein’s temporal dimensions of the world-economy. These are cyclical rhythms (concerned with the tendency of the capitalist world-economy to go through recurrent periods of expansion and subsequent contraction), secular trends (long-term growth or contraction of the world-economy), contradictions (arise because of constraints imposed by systematic structures which make one set of behaviour optimal in the short-run, and different ones optimal in long-run i.e. under-consumption) and crisis (a unique set of circumstances that can only be manifested once in a lifetime of a world-system – a crisis heralds the end of a particular world-system and the replacement by another). These, combined with special dimensions, determine the historical trajectory of the system.
• WST: Andre Gunder Frank has launched a significant critique of Wallerstein’s work. Not only does he suggest that the world-system is far older than Wallerstein suggests, but that it is an offshoot of a system that originated in Asia, where in the medieval period, Europe was a peripheral area to a world-economy centred on the Middle East.

Gramscianism

• Gramscianism: Explored the processes by which consent for a particular social and political system was produced and reproduced, and through the operation of hegemony.
• It is this hegemony that allows the moral, political, and cultural values of the dominant group to become widely dispersed throughout society. This takes place through the institutions of civil society.
• Robert Cox has attempted to ‘internationalize’ Gramsci’s thought by transposing the concept of hegemony to the global context. He argues that hegemony is as important for maintaining stability and continuity here as it is at the domestic level. The success of the US in gaining worldwide acceptance for neo-liberalism suggests just how dominant the current hegemon has become.

Critical Theory

• The third contemporary branch of Marxist thinking, Critical Theory, is similar to gramscianism.
• Critical theorists involve themselves with questions concerning international society, international ethics & security.
• The focus of critical theory is entirely superstructural. Intellectual concerns are on questions relating to culture, bureaucracy, social basis & nature of authoritarianism, the structure of the family, & exploring concepts such as reason and rationality.
• They argue that the working class has been absorbed by the system and no longer represents a threat to it. It is a one-dimensional society to which the vast majority simply cannot conceive an alternative.
• Critical theorists also focus on the meaning emancipation. Habermas’s understanding of emancipation is more concerned with communication than with out relationship with the natural world (which is what traditional Marxists focus on).
• Habermas’s central political point is that the route to emancipation lies through radical democracy. Participation is not to be confined within the borders of a particular sovereign state. Rights and obligations extend beyond state frontiers.
• Andrew Linklater argues that emancipation in the realm of international relations should be understood in terms of the expansion of moral boundaries of a political community. He equates emancipation with a process in which the borders of the sovereign state lose their ethical and moral significance.
• Suggests an important part of the international system is entering an era in which the sovereign state is beginning to lose some of its pre-eminence.

New Marxism

• New Marxists have returned to the fundamental tenets of Marxist thought.
• Justin Rosenberg (capitalism & global social relations) focuses on the character of the international system and its relationship to the changing character of social relations.
• Rosenberg challenges realism and globalization theory, arguing that the development of a theory of international relations is sensitive to the changing character of world politics. This theory must also recognize that international relations are part of a broader pattern of social relations.
• Benno Teschke (social property relations) focuses on a means of analyzing changes in the constitution and practices of actors in the international system. Social relations provide the starting point for an analysis of international relations.