Marxism and International Relations: Comprehensive Notes

Marxism is not a well-defined theory of international relations.
Realists like Kenneth Waltz believed Marxism doesn't illuminate international politics because it prioritizes economic developments over states.
Marxists argue that conflicts between states are linked to economic developments.
There are internal disagreements among Marxists, at times revolving around minor doctrinal points.

Perry Anderson was a long-time editor of the New Left Review.
He is a broad scholar who has written on foreign policy, including a book on American Foreign Policy and its Thinkers.
Anderson aligns with realism but doesn't have a distinct theory of international relations.
Realists are often conservative, but both "Marxist realists" and conventional realists are skeptical of liberal orthodoxies.
Anderson defines "genuine realism" as the ability to observe realities without self-deception.
He praises theorists who maintain independence of mind, like John Mearsheimer.
Mearsheimer is noted for his critique of the "effusive guff" of Clinton's foreign policy.
Mearsheimer's work is regarded as a demystification of US foreign policy.

Chomsky is an Anarchist, not a Marxist.
He initially focused on linguistics but has extensively written about global politics.
He is critical of US foreign policy.
Like Anderson, Chomsky lacks a specific theory of global politics.
His portrayal of the United States as seeking to expand its power aligns with realism.
Chomsky's realism includes moral outrage.
He is contemptuous of what he views as hypocritical, "high-minded" liberalism.

Anderson and Chomsky contend that US state actors do not always act in the best interests of the American people.
They suggest a divergence between state power and the well-being of the populace.
Both believe the US disregards the well-being of people in other countries.
Chomsky has highlighted instances of US involvement in wars, coups, and support for right-wing groups.

Realists tend to view states as behaving similarly, regardless of their internal nature.
Marxists like Anderson find explanatory power in the relationship between corporations (e.g., "military-industrial complex") and state power.
Capitalist globalization is led by dominant class forces working with powerful states, exemplified by the "Washington Consensus".
Marxists argue that western states, especially the USA, use state power to facilitate capital accumulation.
This involves promoting market-oriented and private-ownership-based systems.
This is characterized as a "corporate-liberal model," where US military power supports the capitalist "free world".

Marxism is criticized for underrating the power of nationalism, ethnicity, and religion, while prioritizing class conflict.
Realists argue Marxism neglects the state and geopolitics as independent factors.
The idea that a world of socialist states would eliminate rivalry is seen as utopian, similar to the liberal democratic peace theory.
Realists claim that Marxist regimes have behaved similarly to other states, utilizing nationalism.
Marx's call for workers to unite was undermined in 1914 when socialist parties supported war.
The "proletariat" is now seen as susceptible to nationalism, ethnocentrism, and jingoism.

Marxism historically embraced the "paradigm of production" and celebrated economic growth.
Capitalism was seen as progressive, but destined to be replaced by socialism.
Contemporary issues like climate change reveal the limitations of this approach.
"Green Marxism" or "Eco-Marxism" has emerged.
These require significant revisions to the original Marxist approach.

Current global conflicts are primarily between states and ethnic-religious groups, such as in Ukraine, Syria, and between India and Pakistan.
Contrary to Marx's predictions, religion remains strong globally, even in high-income countries, and fuels phenomena like ISIS terrorism and radical right politics in the USA.
Socialism and social democracy have largely been replaced by technocratic liberalism and populism.
Though diminished as a political movement, Marxism is still useful for analyzing the links between economic actors and powerful states.

Branko Milanovic argues that feudalism would give way to capitalism, then to socialism.
Marxism was more successful in less developed countries (USSR, China, Vietnam) than in the West where social democracy predominated.
Marxism's historical role was to industrialize and modernize pre-capitalist societies, eventually leading them to embrace market economics.
Milanovic suggests that Marxism facilitated the transition from feudalism to capitalism in these countries.

It is precisely in the neglected history of the Third World that we shall find the place of communism within global history. I shall argue that communism is a social system that enabled backward and colonized societies to abolish feudalism, regain economic and political independence, and build indigenous capitalism.
Or to put it another way, it was a system of transition from feudalism to capitalism used in less-developed and colonized societies.
Communism is the functional equivalent of the rise of the bourgeoisie in the West.
Branko Milanovic, Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World

Marxism focuses on class inequalities.
Milanovic argues that location is the biggest factor in global inequality.
Inequality between countries is a major cause of global inequality.
This aligns with the Marxist idea of a "labor aristocracy" in developed countries collaborating with their ruling class to exploit less developed countries.
Critics argue that Marxism hasn't adequately addressed other forms of inequality and oppression, like patriarchy and racism.
russia : oligarchs includes putin and a select few, imperilistic- naturaul resources ,wheat , lithium, young fighters -exploited, north korean fighters-further exploitation, elites-use of the media to control “denazification”
nato : imperialism, exploitation- extended sphere at capitalist influence, eyes on resources, trump wants access to these resources-us companies- in return for us support, sums of money supporting the war-military industrial complex-huge industry - power and money for the elites, media