Posted at 10.31.2018
Nothing regarding Marxism/Leninism as circumstances Ideology, although associated with it, and uncomfortable because of it. Marxism is a couple of analytical ideas, that experience a renaissance today, because it appears obviously again, following the triumphalism of the 1990s, that Capitalism is in a constant turmoil. In Latin America, in Asia, and even within the united states, financial crises happen often. Also, even though capitalism is working, it could not produce favourable results for everyone. Globalisation is good for American companies, however, not necessarily for the American blue collar employee.
Strength of Marxism: to understand the role of the overall economy in politics and analyse why crises are part than it.
In International Politics: it investigates the role of global capitalism in world politics. It really is a theory that is very disconcerting, for this demonstrates things that people usually don't want to listen to or know: that our riches in the Western world is dependent after the poverty and misery of the folks in the other parts of the world. In Marx's words; "accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality at the contrary pole'.
1/5 of the world's people is moving into extreme poverty,
30, 000 children pass away every day from avoidable diseases
1 bn people don't have usage of clean water
In 34 countries the life expectancy is now less than it is at 1990
is not really a god-given feature of the world, but to a significant extent caused by the way the global economy works.
Here we will talk about four different theories that take creativity from Marxism. What do they have as a common factor?
Society and Politics are a Totality. The department into Background, Sociology, IR, Political Technology, Economics etc is misleading and difficult. Every issue, problem is part of the totality. Current example: USA vs. Iraq: what's relevant? Military electric power, nuclear weaponry, balance of vitality, regime type, culture, religious beliefs, economic interests in oil. . . etc. So to isolate one of the point always misses that the picture is definitely a big one and a complicated one.
A materialist conception of record. History is motivated by the strain between the means of production (labour, tools, technology, capital) and the relations of creation (the socio-economic conditions that prevail in a world: Feudalism, Slaveholder population, Capitalism. . . ) Former transform and 'improve', straining against the latter: during Feudalism, developing needed more free staff member, undermining the bondage of peasants and the power of guilds. Slavery in 1865 was not only a moral depravity but also economically outdated. It is too inefficient to contend with modern developing in large size. This anxiety will over time business lead to the transformation of social relationships: the freeing of peasants in Europe, of slaves within the USA, and so on. Also, the economical sector (means and relations of development) dominates the politics, legal, and cultural system. This 'superstructure' reflects and reinforces the way the economical sector, the 'bottom part' is run. We have a political system that supports and reinforces capitalist property, our regulations protect property, our welfare says keep carefully the people alive so they don't revolt or starve. Our culture facilitates the reaping of income for large companies and companies: fashion, music, arts, entertainment, also education is led towards income maximisation of capital.
Class is a central idea: in every society there may be class conflict. In capitalist population, there is the discord between bourgeoisie and proletariat. A little too simple perhaps today, but if you really know what Enron have to its employees, you get a concept that the interest of the capitalist are not always the pursuits of the personnel or employees.
'Philosophers have only interpreted the entire world in various ways, the point, however, is to improve it'. Emancipation and change were the goal for him: to get rid of capitalism and its exploitation of the employees, also to create a more just society. This is still on the plan, not least in global politics.
Based on insights that globalised capitalism is setting up a core-periphery on the planet, and that all economic interactions happen within a worldwide context. The positioning of expresses in this technique determines their behaviour and their interactions.
Core: industrialised and modern parts of world economy. Periphery: the exploited part from which we acquire cheap resources and organic material. Conditions of trade are deteriorating over time for Periphery: natural materials gets cheaper, manufactured goods more expansive.
Semi-Periphery: plays an interesting part: stabilizes capitalism in Center by providing cheap labour and by taking up labour rigorous industries that move out of main.
cyclical rhythms: enlargement and contraction: currency markets, trade, etc
secular styles: over time moving up or down through cyclical rhythms
contradictions: central part of capitalism: turmoil of underconsumption laying off employees makes profits surge, but then no-one buys stuff, so even more lay-offs. . .
Crisis: of a whole world system, probability for change
Problem that Antonio Gramsci handled: why there is absolutely no revolution happening in Western Europe? How do capitalism stabilize itself and make workers think that Capitalism is also in their interest? Why is nobody really challenging it?
Hegemony: dominant ideology allocated through modern culture via press, culture, education, churches, etc (civil contemporary society). It's a soft form of electricity, complementing coercion. Folks are elevated and socialized to simply accept no alternative to Capitalism, schools educate about its virtues, and everybody needs it for granted that we are a capitalist culture. So the Superstructure (politics, culture, etc) feeds back again and stabilizes the basis.
In international politics, Robert Cox above all has used and developed these fascinating ideas about the relationship between material reality (economics) and ideological superstructure (politics and culture) in looking into the way this works in the international current economic climate.
Success of free trade and neoliberalism around the globe must be described: Why every person assumes that free trade is the solution to the financial problems of every country, when it so blatantly is not?
As Cox points out, theory is usually a theory for some one, and for some goal. It's never neutral and objective, it always benefits some and does not profit or oppresses others. Prices about right and wrong are inherent and implicit in virtually any theory.
And the hegemonic ideology of neoliberalism does indeed just that: it benefits the eye of the abundant and powerful in world economics.
It opens up markets with their powerful and useful companies.
It makes resources and recycleables available for an inexpensive price, as it forces these countries to give attention to those resources for income, and causes them into a competition with each other.
It allows European companies to snap up privatised companies in UNDER-DEVELOPED countries at great buy prices.
. Thus, by forcing the countries of the underdeveloped world in to the free market economy, we do that above all to aid our own pursuits. By professing and distributing the 'news' that there surely is no option to neoliberalism and free trade, we abolish alternatives for these countries. And if they still withstand, ideology is enforced by international establishments. Case reviewed in Container 10. 3 is very good here.
It should be known in this context that those countries that effectively developed their economies since the 1950s in the Third World (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, India) performed so with a significant role for their state and protectionist regulations. Education systems were essential.
If countries resist, the IMF refused to provide them financial aid that they need to get out of debt.
Also, further problem: Western world itself will not take 'free trade' everything seriously. OXFAM REPORT HERE.
The growing integration of nationwide economies, the increasing interdependence of societies, and the proliferation of global organisations and sites are in a sense nothing not used to Marxism. They are looking at these improvements for the longest time: Capitalism itself is the driving drive behind it.
Capitalism is expansive, and transformative. It constantly looks for new markets because of its products, and it changes the societies it extends to in this quest. Traditional societies which have survived through decades are melted down and turned into modern capitalist societies with all the repercussions this has.
And as monetary developments and economic power will only increase in the near future, these kind of theories will become more relevant than Realism and Liberalism. So that the globalising market now produces more and more undesirable results, not only in the Third World, but also at home, we would also focus on the "emancipatory" facet of Marxism and the question of transforming the global overall economy to make it fairer, and much more just.