2 Realism and Marxism

In this section of the course, you will have the opportunity to engage in detail with two IR theories. As you will recall from Section 1, a theory is essentially a framework for understanding, which helps identify the relationships between different factors and seeks to explain phenomena in international relations.

Beyond this, though, scholars sometimes disagree on what their theory of IR should actually do. For some, the purpose of theory is to simplify the world in ways that can provide better explanations of what is happening and the relationships that underpin these happenings. For others, though, the mere fact of theorising about IR entails decisions about what to prioritise or overlook, and thus has an impact on what the world looks like.

In this section, you will be exploring two contrasting theories of IR: realism and Marxism. Both have established long traditions of thinking about power in international relations in different ways.

Activity 2

Timing: Allow approximately 40 minutes

Part 1: Realism theory quiz

Timing: 10 minutes

Watch the animation about realism in International Relations, then work through the set of flashcards, in each case choosing the one that best reflects the realist perspective.

Download this video clip.Video player: Video 3

Show transcript | Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 3 Realism in International Relations

SPEAKER:

The realist tradition in international relations focuses on the pursuit of power by states. It is primarily seen as a positivist tradition, which aims to solve the problems states face in their pursuit of power and security. Some thinkers trace realist ideas back to ancient Greece and the work of Thucydides, who argued that the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Modern realism emerged in the 20th century, styling itself as a realistic view of international relations against what it saw as utopian theories about progress.

Realism is shaped by four key ideas-- state centrism, anarchy, survival through self-help, and power. State centrism-- realists see states as the most important actors in international relations. They assert that states always put their own interests first. Realists therefore focus on what states do, not other actors, like interest groups or individuals.

Anarchy-- realists see the international system as anarchic, with no overarching authority or government to control what states do. Survival through self-help-- with no government to protect them, states have to rely on their own resources to ensure they aren't invaded or attacked. Their own survival or security is the primary goal. Power-- states pursue survival by increasing their power. And for realists, the ultimate form of power is military might.

There are many strands of realism. Classical realists, like Hans Morgenthau, believed that states competition for power is driven by human nature. Structural realists argue that it's the anarchic character of the system that drives competition.

States behave differently depending on the power balance and whether there's one dominant state, known as unipolarity; two dominant states, bipolarity; or several dominant states, multipolarity. Key structural realists include Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. Neoclassical realists share elements of both approaches. They argue that though the system forces states to pursue power, the way states view each other and the actions of their leaders also have an impact.

Realism has been criticised for focusing too heavily on states and ignoring other actors. It's also been criticised for overemphasising conflict over cooperation, for being too Western centric, and for focusing on the great powers over the weaker ones. Realism gives us clear focus and tools to analyse power and states in international relations.

End transcript: Video 3 Realism in International Relations

Download

Video 3 Realism in International Relations

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Active content not displayed. This content requires JavaScript to be enabled.

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Comment

Hopefully you will have been able to correctly identify some of the key features of realism, based on what you learned in the video. Remember, though, it is often difficult to define and apply a theoretical position based only on a true/false simplification. For this reason, it is important to start building a nuanced understanding of the key principles and features of realism.

Part 2: Realism – key principles and features

Timing: 10 minutes

Watch the Realism video again and make some notes relating to each of the bullet point prompts below, then click to reveal the course team’s answers.

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Discussion

The four key principles of realism in IR are:

• the centrality of states in international relations
• the lack of an overarching authority to control those states, producing an anarchy
• the consequential priority for states to ensure their own survival and security
• the pursuit of that security through power.

Three traditions within realism are:

• Classical realism, focused on competition for power as a function of human nature
• Structural realism, focused on the anarchy of the international system as the driver of competition
• Neoclassical realism, focused on how actions and perceptions of actions impact state competition

Three key figures in realism are:

• Hans Morgenthau
• Kenneth Waltz
• John Mearsheimer

Main criticisms of the realist tradition: the focus on states can lead to ignoring the role of other actors, while realism can also over-emphasise competition over cooperation. In addition critics say realism is too western-centric and too focused on great powers.

Part 3: Marxism theory quiz

Timing: 10 minutes

Now watch the animation about Marxism in International Relations, then work through the set of flashcards, in each case choosing the one that best reflects the Marxist perspective.

Download this video clip.Video player: Video 4

Show transcript | Hide transcript

Transcript: Video 4 Marxism in International Relations

SPEAKER:

The Marxist tradition in international relations builds on Karl Marx's analysis of capitalist economies. It focuses on the interactions between the state system and the development of global capitalism. Marxism has both positivist and post-positivist tendencies, relying on objective observation, though arguing it has its limits.

Marxism is generally viewed as critical theory, exploring how the modern capitalist world developed and how it might be transformed. It also seeks to explore the problems faced by those seeking to either sustain or to challenge capitalism.

Many early Marxist thinkers were themselves involved in radical or revolutionary politics-- for instance, Lenin and Trotsky in Russia, Antonio Gramsci in Italy, and Rosa Luxemburg in Germany. Contemporary Marxist theory focuses on the US as the leading capitalist power and on the position of the Global South, including China, in the international system.

Marxist approaches to international relations share a number of core ideas. First, the international system is made up of a state system on the one hand and a capitalist world economy on the other. Second, the states that make up the system will vary according to the class relationships within each society.

Third, what states do in international relations depends on the interests and activities of the ruling class as well as the state's position in the system, whether it's a leading economy or a poorer one. Finally, international relations is a dynamic field shaped by the booms and busts of capitalist economies.

Some work in the Marxist tradition draws on earlier Marxists for inspiration. Robert Cox developed Gramsci's ideas to argue that US hegemony or leadership was sustained by both its material advantages and its social and cultural influence. Justin Rosenberg developed Trotsky's ideas to analyse how countries can catch up with leading states by developing new kinds of economy and state, such as China in relation to the US.

Marxism has been criticised for overemphasising the downsides of capitalism, such as inequality, and ignoring its benefits, such as wealth and technology. It's also been criticised for emphasising class over other forms of privilege, like race and gender. In international relations, Marxism highlights the role of modern capitalism in our understanding of the state system.

End transcript: Video 4 Marxism in International Relations

Download

Video 4 Marxism in International Relations

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Active content not displayed. This content requires JavaScript to be enabled.

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Comment

Hopefully you will have been able to correctly identify some of the key features of Marxism, based on what you learned in the video. As you learned with respect to realism, though, it can be difficult to define and apply a theoretical position based only on a true/false simplification. For this reason, it is important to start building a nuanced understanding of the key principles and features of Marxism.

Part 4: Marxism – key principles and features

Timing: 10 minutes

Watch the Marxism video again and make some notes relating to each of the bullet point prompts below, then click to reveal the course team’s answers.

To use this interactive functionality a free OU account is required. Sign in or register.

Interactive feature not available in single page view (see it in standard view).

Discussion

The key focus of Marxism in IR is: the interrelated development of the state system and global capitalism, and how it might be transformed

Four key ideas of Marxist IR:

• the international system is made up of a state system and a capitalist world economy
• the states that make up the system vary according to the class relationships within each society
• states’ actions in international relations are contingent on the interests of the ruling classes, and on the position of the state within the global economic hierarchy
• international relations are shaped and re-shaped by economic booms and busts.

Two key contemporary IR scholars working in the Marxist tradition: Robert Cox, Justin Rosenberg

Main criticisms of the Marxist tradition: Some argue it over-emphasises the negative aspects of capitalism compared with capitalism’s benefits; others believe it over-emphasises class hierarchies over, for example, racialised or gendered ones.

This section has introduced you to realist and Marxist approaches to IR. You have learned that the core principles of realism are state-centrism, anarchy, survival and power. You were introduced to some of the different schools of realism, including classical realism, structural realism and neo-classical realism. You will have noted some differences or tensions within the realist tradition as to why states seek power, how power is defined and measured, and whether there is or should be any limits to the amount of power states seek.

In your introduction to Marxism, you have learned about its development as a general social theory, which has nevertheless developed unique analyses of international relations, particularly focusing on the relationship between the development of the state system and the capitalist world economy. You will have seen that power is also a key concept in Marxist approaches to IR, but in this case, the focus tends to be on the distribution of economic and social power. So, whilst different IR theories might rest upon similar concepts, they may interpret them in significantly different ways.