The Orthodox Marxism and Neo-Gramscian School - Essay Example

? ORTHODOX MARXISM AND NEO-GRAMSCIAN THEORY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS by Presented to of the of the of University] [Name of the City and State] May 3, 2011 Introduction This essay will deal with common and distinct features of orthodox Marxism and neo-Gramscian school as approaches to research of the IR. The basic argument will centre on differences and points of convergence both in broader philosophical assumptions of the two theories and the specific ideas on the structure of the IR. It will be argued that, while orthodox Marxism and neo-Gramscianism share a set of basic assumptions, the discursive character of these ideas is different enough to warrant the conclusion that Marxist and neo-Gramscian views of the IR present different views of the nature of modern IR. The essay will be structured as follows. In the first section, the basic assumption and specific views of orthodox Marxist theorists of the IR will be examined. It will be argued that orthodox Marxism proceeds from the notion of primacy of international economic relations over political processes in the world system of states, neglecting ideological dimensions of international system. The second section will be devoted to analysis of neo-Gramscian approach to the IR. The questions of neo-Gramscian view on interrelation between economic and social factors of the IR will be given due attention. Finally, in the third section which will represent a conclusion to the essay, the direct comparison between orthodox Marxism and neo-Gramscianism will be presented, with a view to proving the difference between these two schools of international political thought. 1. Orthodox Marxism as a Theory of International Relations Basic Assumptions of Orthodox Marxism The crux of orthodox Marxist approach to the study of the IR lies in its assumption of primacy of economic and technological development over purely political processes, and of predominance of the struggle between different social classes over conflicts between political states (Linklater, 2005, p. 110). Unlike idealist and realist perspectives that centre on assumption of basically unchanging process of competition between self-interested individuals/political entities, a Marxian political analysis rests on the idea of historical specificity of social processes and of organic nature of social relations (Rupert, 2007b, p. 150). The Marxist theory implies the interconnection between productive forces as material bases for social production, and relations of production, which refer to the social relations between individuals, usually organized into classes, over the issues of production and distribution of social product. A Marxist perspective on the social processes proceeds from the idea of dialectic of “relations in process” (Rupert, 2007b, p. 151), where the social subjects, or agents, are both dependent on social structures that set the framework for their actions and effect their maintenance and further development. In that way, social structures simultaneously determine the actions of social agents and are continuously altered by them (Rupert, 2007a, p. 36). In class society the nature of social agents is determined by their class nature, with capitalist social relations being preconditioned by the struggle between two socio-economic classes: the bourgeoisie (capitalist entrepreneurs) and the proletariat (propertyless wage workers). The View of International Relations in Orthodox Marxism Just as Marx and Engels viewed economic structure of specific societies as the factor defining the whole variety of its political, juridical and ideological forms (the former was regarded as “basis” of society, the latter as its “superstructure”), so they regarded the problems of the IR as the result of interactions of different economies controlled by national dominant classes, whose interests are represented politically by their state. According to Marx and Engels, as the existence of bourgeoisie as a class in capitalist society was predicated on the unceasing expansion of capital, struggle for inherently finite markets led both to further extension of capitalist rule to the regions of the world that were yet untouched by capitalist development (colonialism), and to internecine struggle between different national groups of capitalists between themselves (Linklater, 2005, p. 116). Both aspects of the process of capitalist expansion were regarded by Marx and Engels as giving rise to international conflicts, which were themselves a political expression of international economic contradictions between different national groups of capitalists. Marx and Engels believed that, unlike the bourgeoisie that used the ideology of nationalism to further its interests in global markets, the proletariat did not have any motives for engaging in international conflicts, so the overthrow of capitalism would lead to the end of the fractured system of nation-states associated with it, and to the emergence of worldwide communist society which would lack national barriers (Linklater, 2005, p. 117). In the 20th century, orthodox Marxist studies of the IR found their most prominent representatives in Lenin and Bukharin’s theories of imperialism as the next and supposedly highest stage of development of capitalism. Here the Marxian idea of economic conflict between national groups of capitalism as a source of modern international conflicts is elaborated in the analytical account of emergence of national monopolistic companies in the late 19th to the early 20th century (Rupert, 2007b, p.155). Lenin (1968) and Bukharin (1972) believed that the accumulation of capital led to the scramble for new spheres of profitable investment, while economic protectionism of major capitalist nations precluded the solution of this problem by merely economic means, thus leading to major international frictions. At the same time, capitalist investment is invariably drawn to relatively less-developed nations and regions, where the greater profit rates are possible. Achieving economic domination over these territories, the capitalists would inevitably employ the means of political domination, thus politically subordinating these territories and nations to their own nation state. Such an account formed the basis for further orthodox Marxist explanations of colonialism, and later neo-colonialism. Finally, the ideas of uneven and combined development played an important role in the development of orthodox Marxist theory. As uneven trends in the development of the capitalist West and its colonies/former colonies became more and more apparent, many orthodox Marxists theorists began to question previously dominant optimistic account of universal development of industrial capitalism, suggesting that economic and political dominance of the West led to inhibition of ‘natural’ industrial developments of these nations and made them dependent on the capitalist nations of the West for supply of new technologies and manufactured goods, which led to the preservation of pre-capitalist relations of production (Veltmeyer, 1980). Accordingly, such ‘underdeveloped’ nations should rely on anti-capitalist revolution which was to open the way towards their organic industrial development. This discourse gave rise to such theories as Trotsky’s notion of ‘uneven and combined development’, Mao Zedong’s Three Worlds theory and various dependency theories (Linklater, 2005, pp. 123-124). As may be seen from this account, orthodox Marxist theorists of the IR treat the political and ideological character of international system as secondary to dynamics of international economic relations. While this allows for eschewing essentialist theorization of ‘human nature’ or struggle for unchanging national interests as abstract basis of the IR, it is still inadequate for explanation of many phenomena of international life. Therefore, greater attention to socio-political and ideological aspects of the IR is necessary to provide more organic account of international politics. 2. Neo-Gramscian Theory of International Relations Basic Assumptions of Neo-Gramscian Theory The main body of so-called neo-Gramscian theory of the IR grew out of attempts of several neo-Marxist scholars to apply theoretical contributions of Antonio Gramsci, a famous Italian Communist leader of the 1920s, who dealt with problems of ideology and social hegemony in his writings, to the problematique of international politics (Gill, 1993). Such writers as Robert W. Cox, Stephen Gill, Henk Overbeek and Kees van der Pijl, used Gramscian discourse of hegemony to substantiate their own views of international system and its development. Gramsci’s works on cultural hegemony and differences between political state and civil society were creatively reinterpreted by these authors, and for this reason their theories are commonly known as neo-Gramscianism. Following Marxist notions of historical specificity of political processes, neo-Gramscians argue that mainstream account of unchangeable structures of the IR is manifestly limited. According to Cox and his disciples, the development of international system should be viewed through the lens of changes in global political economy, which constitutes the unity of economic, political and cultural structures and agents that participate in their maintenance. The global political economy is characterised by three main dimensions of historical structures, i.e. by historically specific configurations of world order, social relations of production and forms of state (Bieler and Morton, 2004, pp. 87-88). Social relations of production are viewed as complex combinations of material, institutional and ideological forms that reflect the interests of particular social actors; forms of state represent combinations of political states-civil society relations; and world order consists in historically specific configuration of forces of international actors which reflects their relative strengths and internal relations within a given “ensemble of states” (Cox, 1981, p. 138). The relations between these spheres do not consist in mere mechanic interaction; rather, they are conceived as “different moments in the constitution of a contradictory totality of world order” (Bakker and Gill, 2003, p. 25). All three spheres represent different dimensions of particular configuration of forces, which expresses itself through such categories as material capabilities, ideas and institutions. Here material capabilities are regarded as “technological and organisational capabilities” that underpin the abilities of different international actors to exert their will upon the others; ideas refer to historically conditioned intersubjective meanings that determine the particulars of behaviour of international actors and prevailing notions of legitimate power relations (collective images); while institutions encompass the functional means for maintenance of particular world order (Cox, 1981). Hegemony as a set of dominant ideological practices is maintained through the actions of social forces within all three spheres, which allows for existence of unified world order (Bieler and Morton, 2004). International hegemony is thus conceived as consensual form of dominance which depends on “a coherent conjunction... between a configuration of material power, the prevalent collective image of world order... and a set of institutions which administer the order with a certain semblance of universality” (Cox, 1981, p. 139). Finally, social forces as major actors of both internal and international social relations directly influence international structures by their actions that transcend national boundaries. These social forces are born into existence by effects of dominant systems of social relations of production, uniting economic, political and ideological planes of social practice (Bieler and Morton, 2004, p.88). The nation-state is conceived as intermediary between “the global structure of social forces and local configurations of social forces within particular countries” (Cox, 1981, p. 141). Social forces are viewed by neo-Gramscians as basic international actors, while states and their power interests are, in common with orthodox Marxism, regarded as secondary phenomena, ultimately derived from greater social interests. The View of International Relations in Neo-Gramscian Theory The general account of relations between capitalism and world system of state presented by Neo-Gramscians is both similar and distinct from that of Orthodox Marxism. The existence of particular structures of world hegemony is predicated upon the strength of economic structures that allow better reproduction and extension of interests of dominant social forces. More general accounts of Neo-Gramscian vision of modern IR rest on their assumption of increasing transnationalisation of existing world order. According to Cox (1987), the progressive internationalisation of global production and increase in capital flows led to profound transformation of world order, with nation-states being gradually transformed into instruments of transnational social forces (Cox, 1987). While previously the world order rested upon the combination of free flows of goods on international market with the interventionist economic policies, the end of the 1970s saw the change from this system, characterised by dominance of Fordist system of mass production and consumption, as well as by “tripartite corporatism” involving collaboration between states, business corporations and mainstream labour movements, to a new regime characterised by predominance of transnational social forces that are no longer bound by national limitations (Cox, 1987, pp. 219-230). The most prominent examples of these social forces are transnational corporations, with their leadership constituting a new “transnational managerial class” (Cox, 1981, p. 147) that progressively assumes the dominant positions in the international class structure. Such transnationalisation of the IR implies the breakdown of previous geographical distinctions between different groups of states (which form a major part of assumptions of dependency theorists), and leads to internationalisation of the state as a necessary precondition for domination of transnational social forces. Nation-states no longer pursue the exclusive interests of local social forces, whatever they may be; they are intrinsically connected with the global structures of transnational hegemony. The state thus becomes a “transmission belt” of globalizing influence of transnational capitalist actors, finally losing its relative autonomy (Cox, 1992, p. 31). Such a development leads to progressive subjection of subaltern social forces (i.e. the international popular classes) to rigours of disciplinary neoliberalism and market civilization, as Gill (1995) has termed these structural policies. The international institutions such as WTO or IMF thus assume a role more independent from traditional pressures from below, exercising the collective will of dominant transnational social forces. The implications of such view of general tendencies of the IR from the perspective of different neo-Gramscian theorists are diverse. While such thinkers as Burbach and Robinson (1999) view the emergence of transnational classes and finally a global state as necessary outcome of the internationalisation of the state, other neo-Gramscians, such as Gill (2003), observe that the internationalisation of the state and increasing globalization of world production does not exclude the possibilities of conflict between different groups of transnational social forces which might lead to further international conflicts, including those of global scale. To summarise, the neo-Gramscian perspective rests on the primacy of economic interests of different social forces which exercise their interests through the nation-state and transnational/international institutions. Nevertheless, unlike orthodox Marxism, the neo-Gramscian school did not regard social ideas and prevailing institutions as something completely dependent on socio-economic factors. To the contrary, ideas and institutions are viewed as means of exercising international hegemony of dominant social forces which are just as important as purely material capabilities. 3. Conclusion Proceeding from the aforementioned, it is now possible to define certain common and distinct features of orthodox Marxist and neo-Gramscian approaches to the study of IR. While both schools pay close attention to economic dimensions of IR and socio-economic underpinnings of actions of international actors, orthodox Marxism largely ignores the ideological and institutional spheres of international environment, while neo-Gramscian analysis allows for better integration of ideological factors in general picture of international situation. Orthodox Marxism proceeds from the assumption of dominant role of national actors, namely national groups of ruling classes represented through their states. On the contrary, neo-Gramscianism acknowledges the importance of transnational social forces that may no longer act through exclusively national framework. Orthodox Marxist account of international domination views the attainment of hegemony as a matter of direct economic/political predominance, while neo-Gramscian scholars affirm the importance of the ideological in the establishment of international hegemony and world order as such. In total, orthodox Marxist and neo-Gramscian discourses of IR present the picture of both convergence and contradiction; while they share the notion that states and their national interests are secondary to social forces/classes and their socio-economic interests, they have drastically different view of how these interests are materialised in the international environment (direct politico-economic confrontation versus the formation of different hegemonic projects), and are in disagreement over whether the structure of IR is informed by class conflict or by more pluralistic ensemble of interaction of social forces. In that sense, these two theories are more different than similar. References Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (2003). Ontology, Method and Hypothesis. In: Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (eds.) Power, Production and Social Reproduction: Human In/security in the Global Political Economy. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 17-32. Bieler, A. and Morton, A. (2004) A Critical Theory Route To Hegemony, World Order And Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives In International Relations. Capital & Class. 82. pp. 85-114. Bukharin, N. (1972) Imperialism and World Economy. London, The Merlin Press. Burbach, R. and Robinson, W. (1999) The Fin De Siecle Debate: Globalization as Epochal Shift. Science & Society. 63(1). pp. 10-39. Cox, R.W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 10(2). pp. 126-155. Cox, R.W. (1987) Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in Making of History. New York, Colombia University Press. Cox, R.W. (1992) ‘Global Perestroika’. In: Miliband, R. and Panitsch, L. (eds.) The Socialist Register: New World Order? London, The Merlin Press. pp. 26-43. Gill, S. (1993) Gramsci and Global Politics: Towards a Post-Hegemonic Research Agenda. In: Gill, S. (ed.) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 1-20. Gill, S. (1995) Globalization, Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neoliberalism. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 24(3). pp. 399-423. Gill, S. (2003) National In/security on a Universal Scale. In: Bakker, I. and Gill, S. (eds.) Power, Production and Social Reproduction: Human In/security in the Global Political Economy. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 208-223. Lenin, V. (1968) Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Moscow, International Publishers. Linklater, A. (2005) Marxism. In: Burchill, S. and A. Linklater (eds.) Theories of International Relations. 3rd ed. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 110-136. Rupert, M. (2007a) Marxism. In: Griffiths, M. (ed.) International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction. Abingdon and New York, Routledge. pp. 35-46. Rupert, M. (2007b) Marxism and Critical Theory. In: Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp. 148-165. Veltmeyer, H. (1980). A Central Issue in Dependency Theory. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. 17(3). pp. 198-213. Read More