Marxism and Today's International Relations
This paper critically examines the relevance of Marx for thinking about international relations today.
# 102492 | 1,428 words | 5 sources | MLA | 2005 |
Published on Mar 26, 2008 in Sociology (Theory) , International Relations (General) , Political Science (General) , Political Science (Marx / Engels)
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
In this article, the writer notes that the relevance of Marxism has been said to have died with the end of the Cold War. For most international relations analysts Marxism, as a theory, stands on the periphery of the discipline. The writer points out that few, in particular the realists, accredit it for any theoretical or practical relevance for the study of international affairs. The writer proposes however, that theorists need not feel threatened by Marx's attempt to wither away with their theories. On the contrary, taking Marx more serious as an international relations analyst will render decent theories for still prevalent problems of our international society. The writer concludes that with his treatment of the domestic and external environments, the inequality of distribution and the process of globalization, Marx addresses issues at the heart of contemporary international relations debate.
From the Paper:"Marx's class struggle is universal and it is therefore that a differentiated form of international relations as we acknowledge it today does not exist for Marx; there are only the relations of class struggle. If we apply the definition, there are few theories any more revolutionary than this one. For contemporary international relations analysis this is an interesting view-point, in particular for the behaviouralist-school seeking to challenge realist presumptions of state-centric theory. This fundamental dichotomy of the domestic and the external, Fred Halliday echoes, is not so far-fetched when looking at our current state of affairs in the world. And yet, it remains to be acknowledged that Halliday wrote these words in 1988, when the demise of the monopoly of revolutionary internationalism - the Soviet Union - had not fully accelerated yet. The post-1989/1991 era has witnessed a lot of revisionism on such appraisals as Halliday issued them here; to some extent, one might even argue, realism has gained more momentum through the apparent evidence the collapse of the Soviet bloc provided in favour of the security dilemma and the necessity of conflict until one of the adversaries is dead. Nevertheless, with the question of just how influential the domestic is in international diplomacy, Marx's treatment of this dichotomy lies at the heart of current international relations debate."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Burnham, P. 'The Communist Manifesto as International Relations Theory', Ch. 14 in M. Cowling (ed) The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998).
- Evans, Graham & Newnham, Jeffrey, The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations (London: Penguin Books, 1998).
- Gilbert, A., 'Marx on Internationalism and War', Philosophy and Public Affairs 7, 4 (1978).
- Halliday, F., 'Three Concepts of Internationalism', International Affairs, vol. 62 (1986).
- Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich: The Communist Manifesto (London: Merlin Press, 1998).
Cite this Persuasive Essay:
Marxism and Today's International Relations (2008, March 26) Retrieved September 22, 2020, from https://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/marxism-and-today-international-relations-102492/
"Marxism and Today's International Relations" 26 March 2008. Web. 22 September. 2020. <https://www.academon.com/persuasive-essay/marxism-and-today-international-relations-102492/>