Marxist Theory: a contributer to IR study?

[KritiKal-Mind]

In the United states there appears to be a return to utopianist Karl Marx's ideology of creating one borderless, race-less, religion-less mankind community. Marxist theorists who have been long excluded from mainstream inter-paradigm(academic) debates and media are gathering consensus from global audiences eager to understand the analytical explanations of the structures of the field of International Relations offered by the strands of Marxism. Marxists now walk with a renewed optimistism and confidence, knowing that the relevance of their theory in the study of IR is indespensible. Karl Marx's Core-Periphery, Bourgeois-Proletariat, labour-surplus and others are now more relevant than ever. The draining empty of wealth from the periphery and the growing income gap are some of the few factors which Marxism offers a precise explanations to.

 

So my fellow Nomads....

 

From your point of view, do you think Marxism can answers the questions you might have in regards to International relations? Or Do you think Marxism's contributions to the study of International Relations are valuable?

[Changed]

i think i understand ur point .but am a little confused , do u mind elaborating on it?

 

i will comment later

[Modesty]

Although I do agree with the Marxist ideology of the proletariat- and bourgouis(sp?), I don't think it will answer the Int. relations maining because he was a promoter of communism(i think?).

[Paragon]

'he was a promoter of communism(i think?).'

 

Modesty, yes! we are yet to see true sense of communism. If the communism Marx envisioned is achieved, I would be the first man yarning to live in it. However, what had been called communism by the back-bolsheviks of Russia after they've over-thrown the csarist monarchy wasn't, by any means, communism. If one studies Stalin communism, it becomes very clear that he could've called himself an outright 'Radical Realist' and be right about it.

 

Marxism is nothing more than the means to guide hopeful utopianists to communism.

 

--

[Changed]

^^ they (communist I.E russia , china chuba and many more) misinterprerated marxism, real marxism followers would not call themselves a communist. i think they only took the part of his theory that said there would be no private property , yet they didnt read close to it cuz after he said there would be no private property , he said there would be no GOV needed and theere would no police, I personaly dont agree with that part of his theory

 

i agree with bourgeoisie-proletariat of social marxism to an extent.

 

His theory in the "communist manifesto" has nothing to do with international relation (i think) ... ktitcal mind ...Mind explaining , i am kinda confused

[Paragon]

MIss - yes, Marx said little with regards to IR. But his desciples namely: Antonio Gramsci and his famous 'hegemony, consent and intellectuality addition to original Marx and Engels doctrines, Willerstein - the man who came up with semi-periphery (a country that resembles the core but on the other can be said is periphery), Resengberg, Lenin and his emphasis on 'imperialism, dubbing it 'the highest stage of Capitalism' and not to forget the living Marxist Adrew Linklater and so many others....they've all based their theories on Marx's original ideas ....so one can say Marxism (not Marx himself) has an active role in the International 'political' or economic arena.

 

There was an uproar sometime ago when wall-street stcok-brokers acknowledged that Marx's predictions were to some extent true. I guess, I think if Marx were alife he would have said.. the states is ready for Socialism...

[Vanquish_V12]

which ever way u put its another dogma bound to fail, even a capatilist will tell u, ownership is God give n right. but unlike Allah human ownership is limited in space and time, kinda like relativity if get my drift.

[Liqaye]

Very often the weakness of a theory is inherent in its application in the real world.

Marxism as an idea had within it the seeds of its self immolation.

For instance people always claim that marxism has been abused and has never really be put into practise.

Well how would you put into practise an idea that calls for something as vague as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", with out it deteriorating into a plain old run of the mill murderous despotism?

No Marxism has been weighed and been found wanting not through the inherent weakness of its practioners but rather the inherent weakness of the philosophy.

 

Kritikal mind first of all i think you should be more clear when you talk about international relations because what you are really talking about is an economic question.

Namely the exportation of exploitation to the rest of the world.

It has a name "NEO-LIBERAL GLOBALISATION".

what is occuring in the world is a direct consequence of the thrust of globalization.

The previous exploited and marginalised polity in industrialised countries that according to some is a neccessary by product of capitalism, has now been transferd to the billions of the third world.

In that sense what you call marxist theory is justified.

But again that could be taken to mean such an economic equation cannot be prolonged just as it is no longer the case in western countries.

 

For more on that theme i suggest you read:

 

Globolisation with out neo-librelism by Wim Diexercens

 

The funny thing is I have just finished a course requirement in my public policy class on just the same thing.

 

Deja vu all over again.

[Dhag_Dheer]

Karl Marx is just another atheist..seeing the world from a narrow minded negative view.

I really don't think that the marxist worker/owner theory has any place in the politics of today..after alll his work was based and formed in the 1800..

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

OFF TOPIC: SOME THOUGHTS TO SHARE.

 

Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin

were both Jews. So were the majority of those

who were involved in the early "agenda setting"

for the so called "democratic priciples"

 

Former prime minister of Malaysia, Mohamed Mahathir

recently said, "Communism, socialism and

democracy were pretty much designed by jews so that it

would be hard for others to prosecute them. So that they

can rule the world by proxy." In other words, these systems

have their own hidden agenda whether it is International

relations or domestic policies.

 

Note: that "Jewishness" has

the meanings both of "adherence to

the religion of Judaism"

and "membership in the ethnic

group 'Jews'".

[Changed]

Jamaal thanks for the info..but wouldnt u think these people may have mis interprated marx theory in regards to communism or socialism. seriosly lenon, stalin, mao(not sure if that was the name...) all i think misinterprerated the guy.. and i cant say there is the the perfect interpretation of marxs thoughts..gota run for class i will finish my thought later....

[TIIMBARO]

Libax

 

Vladimir Lenin was not a jew. Leon Trotsky was a jew who was the leader of the red army.

[Libaax-Sankataabte]

^^Jenyo, Lenin was a Russian Jew. Do a little research first and correct me if I am still wrong.

[J.Lee]

utopianist Karl Marx's ideology of creating one borderless, race-less, religion-less mankind community

There're reason that the marxist theory was never put into practice because there could never be a utopia in regards to the above quote.(A world without any form of government is pure choas look at our country for example?) To answer the question posted....No it doesn't answer anything regarding international relations due to the many systems of believes that people hold but I do agree it's valuable the way it effected many other theories though of little use.

 

LST and Jeenyo .....both of you're correct. Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky both are Russian Jews.

[Dalni]

Interesting!