Ben Soder
Realism and Marxism
In my Freshman Seminar Class we are discussing the views of Karl Marx, which center around the idea that history and subsequently international relations are determined by Economics. While reading The Manifesto of the Communist Party, there was one quote in particular that jumped out at me, “[t]he cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which [European states] batter down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate” (Marx 477). This is interesting because Marx extrapolates on his own brand of international relations theory (Marxism) in this quote, stressing that economics is the determinant of outcomes in history and subsequently in the field of international relations. I do not think that Marxist theory is applicable everywhere, but it fits perfectly into the conflict of the Opium War.
The Opium War was a conflict fought between the British Empire and the Qing Empire in the 19th century over trading rights, specifically the right to sell opium in China. The British were becoming rich off of the Opium trade, while the Chinese were becoming poor for a multitude of reasons, of which opium was easy to blame as the paramount. Subsequently, both of these states engaged in a war over trade rights, that resulted in a terrible treaty for the losing Chinese (Spence).
Now I tend to side with Realist ideals, but I still find fault with some of Realist thought. I think that Realism does not stress the importance of economics in international politics. Just by looking at this example of the Opium War, it is easy to see that in this instance economics brought about the war and determined the victor, the British. Marx saw this, as he thinks the “[t]he cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which [European states] batter down all Chinese walls” (Marx 477). In this case, “all Chinese walls” (Marx 477) were the foundations of the Chinese dynastic system, which were destroyed because of the economic power of the British.
However, I still call myself a Realist because I find that politics (for the most part) are determined by power. Yet, today power can be measured by many more things than just the size and strength of one’s military. Economics is a perfect example of this. Especially today, with the world as globalized as it is, powerful economic states can cripple their adversaries economically, thus hindering their ability to project military force. Of course this only works with countries that are very dependent on international trade for survival. However, it is still a factor in some cases.
Now after some reflection, I think that I am a mix between a Marxist and a Realist. This change probably occurred because, where I took history classes and participated in Model UN in high school, I am now taking a class on Marx and taking Economics. Both of these classes have enlightened me to other lines of thought outside of my two favorite subjects, which are IR and history.
Works Cited
Spence, Jonathan D. The Search for Modern China. 1st ed. New York: Norton, 1990. Print.
Tucker, Robert C., ed. The Marx-Engels Reader. 2nd ed. London: W. W. Norton, 1972. Print.
Ben,
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts:
1) There is a marxist theory or IR but we didn't cover it because it has lost popularity in the field over the past 30 years. It centers around core and peripheries and includes much of what you just wrote about.
2) You say you are a realist because you believe that politics is based on power. Does that mean realism or are there other option? As we discussed in class on Tuesday, power can mean lots of things. Think about the role of power in the Enloe reading for instance.
3) As an aside, a major critique of all IR theory is that it tends to ignore colonialism, something that Marxist theory certainly does not.
Thank you for your response Professor,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I should have said military power instead of power in my post. This last class was very interesting to me because before that, I was not aware of the classifications of both 'hard' and 'soft' power. I think anything that can be classified as power or influence, is valid and useful in international politics. It is very important for anybody involved in diplomacy to realize this fact because situations vary in severity. I think that in most situations, military intervention is overkill especially in conflicts between 'super powers'. Today, I think that it is important to understand the power of 'soft power' and economics. I think that military power trumps both of these things, but it is a last resort. For the most part, only after the soft power and economic options have been exhausted, does military power come into play.
Then there can also be varying degrees of military intervention. Because Americans are tired of fighting ground wars, due to the very long war on terror, air strikes and drone strikes have become more relevant today when dealing with situations that require military force. However, between super powers, as seen in the Ukrainian crisis, even though the soft power and economic options failed to hinder Russia for the time being, the US never fought a full scale war with Russia. Maybe if Ukraine was a NATO member, then the outcome would have been much different.
The existence of NATO is the source of a lot of 'soft' power for the United States because it shows that the US can keep other weaker nations (in the eyes of a realist) safe. If the US and other NATO nations failed to assist a member in a time of crisis, then it would prove that NATO and subsequently alliance with the US is meaningless. This will be the ultimate test to see if realism will be relevant in the 21st century. If Russia attacks a NATO member like Estonia or Latvia (two nations that a Realist would view as weak) and the US does not respond, NATO would be proven to be irrelevant, thus proving realist theory. This would be really bad, but it is very hard to know what the reaction of America would be in this situation. I think both American and Russian policy makers are unsure of how the other side would react.
Sorry for the long response, I will try to make it shorter next time. However, I really wanted to expand upon this idea.
Thank you,
Ben Soder
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you integrated the Opium War to highlight your point that economics do matter in International Relations. I agree with most of your argument, especially that military and economic power is paramount in being a powerful state. I am also taking a class on Karl Marx and found it interesting that you took his ideas into the IR field. I'm not sure how much you have studied, but I was curious on what you think on the idea of how the commodity would effect the current and very extensive globalization in the world?
We are studying two other German thinkers in my class, so I don't have much depth with Marx. I think that commodities drive the global economy. Especially in the time that Marx was writing commodities facilitated the expansion of capitalism into foreign markets. To survive, as a system, Capitalism needs to find new markets or the system will experience a depression. Capitalism drives expansion and facilitates global connection. However, it also destroys tradition cultures with commodities.
DeleteHello!
ReplyDeleteI agreed with your response and it was interesting to see how Marxism could be applied in IR as we haven't studied this critique. Economics play a huge role in the way states interact and I agree that by only looking at power the way realists do would not give an accurate portrayal of global affairs-- especially given how there is still a distinction between how some states interact based on differences in economic systems.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI agreed with your response and it was interesting to see how Marxism could be applied in IR as we haven't studied this critique. Economics play a huge role in the way states interact and I agree that by only looking at power the way realists do would not give an accurate portrayal of global affairs-- especially given how there is still a distinction between how some states interact based on differences in economic systems.