Marxist or Structuralist theory - Political Forum

Brother Oz · 01-03-2007, 07:24 AM

Marxist theory, also known as structuralism, is the 3rd most popular theory of International Relations.
At its base, Marxism says that what is important is not states and governments, but class. Basically, in a capitalist system the capitalist class (which owns the means of production) also controls the government. So all governments will take action to keep the dominance of the capitalist class over the workers, whether domestically or internationally.
Marx wrote in the 19th century, and his ideas have been developed in different ways.
The first way is World-System theory, developed as a critique of Imperialism. The most coherent descriptions of the idea were written by Lenin and Wallerstein. They argued that Capitalism had reached a new stage, whereby the world had developed into an industrialised core, a non-industrialised periphery and a semi-periphery. The effect of the world capitalist economy was to create a market which led to a net resource transfer from the periphery to the core. Some of these resources were used to buy off the workers in the core nations. There are also semi-periphery nations which are partly industrialised.
The second idea is Gramscianism. Gramsci, an Italian communist who spent most of his life in Franco's prisons, was trying to work out why a marxist revolution had happened in Russia but not in industrialised Europe. He and his successr writers developed the idea of ideological hegemony, basically that the capitalists created a culture where capitalism was considered by all the best system, and the workers believed this was good for them. This could be developed into international politics, as the rich countries pushed poor countries to adopt capitalism and made them think it was good for them.
The third idea is New Marxism, basically a rehash of original Marxist thought. Basically, it looks at the changes in political relations as being created by changes in the sytem of production.
The most divergent from original marxist thought is Critical Theory, which is different enough that I'll do a different thread on it perhaps.

Do you think I've described Marxist theory correctly, and how accurate do you think it is as a theory for the actions taken in International Relations?

CHUQ · 01-03-2007, 07:50 AM

Quite well written, a bit simplistic but good and accurate.

I will , if you do not mind make a few observations. I have read those who critise Gramsci, but all you need to do to see he was right is watch the news; it shapes a culture. The mass media is used to reinforce the ideology of a particular source.

The ruling class does not get its way all the time, it works within the media to maintain its dominace in the face of opposition.

Sorry, it seems I have digressed into a diatribe on Gramsci. SO sorry--good piece.

misalign · 11-03-2007, 12:26 PM

I have not read up on all the arguments about why communism fell but it did fall. Excuse my blunt analogy but it fell like a pack of neutered dogs. I have come to believe that any system that isnt tied closely to life's own structures will fail and for it not to fail one needs the right type of animal for the right type of system. For instance you cant expect dogs to act like ants.

Big Brother · 11-03-2007, 12:46 PM

Brother Oz

Interesting comments. I haven't read Marx since I was an undergraduate student. I did not major in poly sci. He is generally considered a brilliant analyst and critic of the capitalist system but his remedies for that system ( ie communism) have obviously been more controversial.

Big Bro

kjhworld · 11-04-2007, 12:26 PM

I think that Maxisme is base on self-lying all the concepts like perfect lies.
Even the himself had the confusing at his theory like a real, cause new & complicat idea for that times, he could'nt find any mistakes by himself(?), and gave the other peoples the horrible ideas for adaptation or developing of its.
And the world had to pay too immence cruel siturations of following adaptations of his theory in madness.
He did try to gave some dreams for proletaries of it but having the big faults by misunderstanding to the reality of caracters of humans. His theory had depend on the needs of materials not for minds, and brought terrable missleading of the world in solution for economics, all the cultures, religions, politics.

The egality of materials can not be born from the system in non senses.
That was not problem only in a class, neither government or states.
Perhaps, that depeds on the quality of mental society as spritual and the consiences by peoples.
If the society is spoiled by many selfist or egoists in economic domaines, there are not so good possibilties to have egality in the right of material too.
The right is not meaning of same money, but depend on his efforts of works.
Some one excelent can have much better material, but should respect all the others basic of lifes.
That needs the quality of technic of system economic in society or states.
It's meaning we can have for having that right through high developed society, it needs the very good morality in economy.
That can be choosed the system of economy by elections as example.
Each company or state or groop or owners need have the resonable directions for having "BEST" right, and can be possible to change on details by elections if needs it.
Without the morality in economic, the all the systems is nothing to be good for humans, that was'nt just only problem ni class, or rich, or poverty...
Without the morality it can fabric all the abusing peoples, that gaves poison in society. If you want liberty in economy activity, it must respect the morality, and in past the many rich could abusing that, the result could rest only force(means lost liberties).
So, all the company need to cleary do the directions in the developed society, and we don't need to use unfair or tricks at all in the law.

In future, I believe that the states on the all moralities of politic, economic, systems, societes will be arrive in the world, like one peaceful nations.

I think we need the morality in economic activity at first, and then, the politic can be much better for world.

Brother Oz · 11-05-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

No dependency theory Oz?

What's that?

Brother Oz · 11-05-2007, 05:26 PM

That sounds exactly the same as World-Systems theory.

(Incidentally, I don't do Political Science, it was only one part of a module I did which was an introduction to International Relations last year.)