I. Overview of Marxist Theory, Variants, and Theorists:  The next theoretical perspective we will examine is Marxist Theory written in the mid-18th century and modern adaptations of Marxist theory that are called variously "critical" theory or "Neo-Marxist" theory.   I will use the term Neo-Marxist theory to describe these modern (i.e. 20th and 21st century) adaptations.

A. General Assumptions of Marxist and Neo-Marxist Theory:

1. Transforming Hegel's Dialectic: Dialectical Materialism: Like the Liberals, Marxists and Neo-Marxists are intellectual progeny of Hegel - they all accept the idea of a progressive, linear historical dialectic.  History can be viewed in a grand evolutionary and ultimately progressive clash of ideas and culture as mankind strives to find the system that best meets basic human needs and best addresses the afflictions of human society.  Hegel describes a thesis that characterizes the basic philosophical-cultural zeitgeist of a particular era and forms the basis of organizing society in that era. Hegel labels the dominant philosophical orientation toward life of a particular historical era the "thesis" of that era.  However, because earlier versions of the thesis are imperfect, ultimately the contradictions and imperfections of that thesis will generate opposition - an "anti-thesis".  Hegel's real contribution is the notion that the clash of the thesis and anti-thesis of a particular era would generate a new and better idea for organizing society - an idea he called the synthesis. Thus, history is linear and progressive.  Ultimately, this synthesis is accepted as the dominate thesis of a particular era but because (in earlier versions of human history) it too is imperfect, ultimately a new anti-thesis will arise that will generate a new synthesis.  But as we suggested for the liberals, the process is not infinite.  At some point, Hegel, Liberals, and Karl Marx all believed that we would arrive at the "End of History" with the best systems for mankind.  Liberals believe that the best political system is liberal democracy and the best economic system is capitalism. 

Marx actually also saw both what he called "bourgeois" democracy and capitalism as dramatic improvements on previous systems but for Marx, they are just one more way station and not the final end of history.  Bourgeois democracy is a facade to create the illusion of participation for the lower socio-economic classes and to perpetuate the capitalistic system. It will ultimately be exposed as fraudulent.   And capitalism has its own inherent contradictions (more on these later) and the final and perfect system will emerge which is communism and we will find ourselves at the "end of history" where poverty, starvation, war, crime, exploitation, and social alienation are fading memories of a distant past.  With all societal problems gone, there will no longer be a need for government and that institution will fade away.  The difference for Marx (less so for Neo-Marxists) is that this is not really a competition of ideas but a materialistic competition for the economic levers of power, what Marx called the "means and mode of production." Hence, Marx's differentiates his ideas from Hegel as Dialectical Materialism. We will see later that Neo-Marxists see the struggle as BOTH an economic-material one and a cultural battle of ideas. Neo-Marxists, like Hegel, are much more interested in cultural and political struggles than Marx but even Neo-Marxists believe that the fundamental battle is an economic one over the "means and mode of production."

2. The dominant unit of analysis in international politics is not the nation-state or international organizations but socio-economic class and corporations:. According to Marx, the historical world has also been divided into socio-economic classes with a different economic system in each era and one class controlling the dominant means and mode of production in that economic-historical era and thereby exploiting the other socio-economic class(es).  To understand world politics, focus on the economic interests of the capitalistic socio-economic class and the corporations they control.  Ultimately, all politics, including international politics, serves to benefit the economic interests of the upper class.   The actions of nation-states are driven by the economic interests of their elites. Importantly, (in a prescient anticipation of globalization and out-sourcing) Marx (and especially Lenin) anticipated that these economic elites, following the logical imperatives of capitalism, would expand into the world through MNCs and act in a fashion that maximizes the economic interests of those capitalists and not necessarily the national interests of the nation-state.  International Organizations (like the WTO and the UN) are manipulated by the capitalistic elites in the same fashion is they manipulate national governments.

3. Follow the Money: If the dominant actor in the contemporary era are the capitalists and they manipulate the actions of nation-states and international organizations to preserve the global capitalistic system and to maximize their own profits, then the key to understanding any foreign policy action is to "follow the money" - look to see who benefits economically from this action.  The War in Iraq is not about national security threats like WMD as the realists assert nor is about promoting liberal, democracy and overthrowing a brutal tyrant as the liberals assert - it is about economic profits for the capitalistic class or sometimes for particularly powerful capitalists and the corporations they control.  First and foremost, it is about oil. If Iraq sits on one of the largest oil reserves in the world then there will be a competition of capitalists and their respective corporations to control those resources.  Notice the slight difference with the realists about the utility of going to war for oil.  Realists have no problem with a war for oil provided the economic benefit to the entire country of going to war to secure that oil is worth the economic and human life cost of gaining control of that oil.  Many realists, Kenneth Waltz and John Measheimer, for example, argue that it is not worth the cost.  But Marxists do not approach the drive for oil in terms of "US national interests" they approach it in terms of economic profits and power for particular corporations, e.g. Exxon-Mobil.  And, of course, there are other capitalists in other corporations that stand to benefit from the War in Iraq.  Halliburton, Blackwater, and multiple defense firms are driven by their greed not patriotic concern with US national interests.  To give another example from a previous era, Marxists would assert that the CIA engineered a coup in Guatemala in 1954 not because of a national security threat to the US but because United Fruit stood to loose massive profits if its company was nationalized. So to understand world politics, simply follow the money.  In all countries, a "military-industrial complex" will be operating to manipulate politics to their own economic advantage.  Periodically, to justify their existence and to maximize projects, they will promote wars.

4. Capitalistic Propaganda and False Consciousness:  In the modern era Capitalism is the dominant economic system.  This is different than simple merchant and trade system that goes back to the dawn of civilization. The capitalistic era is characterized by a primary division between the capitalists and the exploited workers who must sell their labor as a commodity.  The capitalists derive profit only from the "surplus labor" of the workers who actually produce the products.  Marxists and in particular Neo- Marxists have always been faced with the reality that not only workers are not revolting but formerly Communist countries (at least countries like claimed to be communist like the Soviet Union that Marxist believe was never a real communist state) are now claiming the capitalist label. How to explain these developments? 

Marx argued long ago that the workers have simply been duped.  The term he used is that the workers have accepted a "false consciousness."  The capitalistic propaganda machine is powerful.  The workers initially accept this, according to Marx, for a variety of reasons. In the first place, they accept it because they believe it to not only the only reality but the best possible reality. If I may use a parallel from a popular movie, Marxists view Bourgeois Democracy and Capitalism as analogous to the "Matrix."  The Capitalists are the "Mr. Smiths" and the humans are the working class who believe that they actually participate in governmental decisions and they fully subscribe to the notion selling their labor to acquire "private property" e.g. their own home in suburbia ("the American dream, if you will) are the best realities.  For those children who do have more material things than their parents, this reinforces the validity of the belief.  But it is an illusion. The people do not understand that Bourgeois Democracy is a facade and they do not understand the parasitic nature of the capitalists who (I hope I am not stretching the Matrix metaphor too far) literally feed off the "surplus labor" of the working class.  When the Capitalist-Dominated state puts out the propaganda notion that we must go to war in Iraq, to promote democracy or to prevent Al Qaeda from launching at attack on the United States they people follow the flag heroically believing that they are serving the interests of the US and not noticing that who truly benefits are organizations like Halliburton. 

A second reason that the people accept the current system is a sort of 21st century equivalent of "Bread and Circuses" used to placate the Roman masses. Television, Movies, Football are the modern equivalent of the Roman Circuses.  They divert you from the looking at the realities of the world; of seeing the capitalistic matrix for what it is. These diversions are especially powerful because they are touted as means to relieve the tedium of the work week.  The bread is the token welfare programs and pitiful health care and retirement systems that are provided to stave off rebellion.  Every time there is social unrest (think the Great Depression or the 1960s) we have new miracle governmental programs that promise to meet the needs - the "New Deal" and the "Great Society." It is more like throwing bread to the  starving masses in Roman days.

And finally, there is religion, the "opiate of the masses."  Conventional religions typically teach subservience to the government ("pray for those in power.") and most of all, the provide a psychological relief from the vague, haunting sense that maybe something is missing in this perfect world.  To the extent that things are not ideal here, then things will be perfect in heaven so you need to fret about life now. 

5. Internal Contradictions of Capitalism: Cracks in the System: But capitalism is not perfect; there are glitches in the matrix.  Marxists and Neo-Marxists disagree over the extent to which the system will automatically self-destruct (more on this difference later) but they agree that the internal contradictions in capitalism provide the mechanism for positive change to the real utopia - communism.  There are at least three reasons why capitalism (and its political facade bourgeois democracy) will ultimately fail:

1. Alienation and Commoditization of Human Beings.   Contrary to Francis Fukuyama, capitalism does not meet basic human psychological needs; to the contrary it thwarts some of the most fundamental human needs.  Capitalism ultimately treats human beings as commodities.  Every worker (actually every capitalist as well) is assigned a monetary value by the system. Your value is measured in dollars - whether it is wages you earn or profits you amass.  You are not a person, you are a cog in the machine.  The people who are valued are those who have the most wealth.  Donald Trump (of all people!) is an individual to be emulated.  Think of the cynical saying "At the end of life - those with the most toys - win."  Think of monetary compensations for injuries or death in our tort system that, in effect, assign a dollar value to human life. Marxists (and especially neo-Marxists) argue that this is fundamentally contrary to our basic human nature and sooner or later people will wake to this cold reality.  Not only are we treated not as human beings but as economic commodities but we are isolated from one another by capitalism.  Human beings are ultimately social creatures they need social interaction and social identity.  Capitalism denies them this identity first because it intentionally pits individual workers against individual workers (or American workers against Mexican workers) for wages and jobs and denies them their sense of collective identity and belonging - to the group that really matters - socio-economic class.  Think of the American family and the necessity (in most homes) for "two bread-winners" in a capitalistic economy.  Think of competing schedules and the strains that these place on the real social needs for family interaction (how well a communist economic system could address this problem need not concern us here but clearly the current economic realities of the American capitalistic system put strains on family life).

2. Faulty Assumption of Possibility for Indefinite Economic Expansion:  To function properly, capitalism requires infinite expansion of the economy; where one is speaking of the national economy or global economy.  There are various reasons for this requirement, one is very simply population growth.  Every year there are more people who come of job seeking age (not to mention those older who must find alternative employment).  If the economy does not generate sufficient jobs for these new workers to fill, then political discontent will rise, ultimately to a boiling point. Another reason for the necessity of an expanding economy is that the whole logic of the various stock markets is based on the notion of an increase in the value of that stock in that company.   Without that belief that - over the long-run - the value of the stock will increase then investors do not have the incentive to buy stock and the whole institution will collapse like a house of cards.  But is this assumption of an infinitely expanding economy a valid one? Marxists would argue that it is fundamentally false for a number of reasons.  One problem is saturation of the market.  One of the primary reasons that the value of many companies increase are the prospects for expansion of markets.  But how many Starbucks can you open before you saturate the market?  One of the primary reasons that China is so important now to the American business community is that there is opportunities for new markets for American companies to sell American wheat, automobiles, computers, McDonald Hamburgers to the billions of Chinese provides a new opportunity to expand beyond the saturated Western markets.  While it is true that the balance of trade is overwhelmingly tilted to the Chinese, there are a number of individual American companies who could care less about the overall American balance of trade so long as they are individually making money.  The problem is that at some point in the future even the massive Chinese market will be saturated.  Perhaps the most important constraint on the infinite expansion of the economy is finite energy resources. Certainly as long as the Western Economy is addicted to fossil fuels and as long as the demands on the dwindling supply of fossil fuels are increased by new developing economic giants (China and India), the price of gasoline may escalate to such astronomical levels that it sends the global economy into a tail spin.

3. Economic Incentives of MNCs and Media Corporations v. Capitalism as a Global Philosophy:  A fundamental problem for Capitalism is that individual capitalistic corporations have an economic incentive (one might say an imperative) to act in ways that can ultimately undermine general support of capitalism as the ideal economic system.  Two institutions are critical here: (1) MNCs - Multi-National Corporations (think Wal Mart, General Motors, and Exxon) and (2) Corporate Media Institutions.  To maintain the illusion of a democracy, some limited press coverage is necessary.  But the press corporations have their own economic incentives.  They make money by telling stories about sex scandals, wars, and - most significant for our purposes - economic crises like outsourcing of jobs to India, increasing gas prices, the economic trade imbalance with China, the influx of illegal immigrants working at low wages in the US, the influx of dangerous products from China, etc In short, while the media corporation capitalists make more money by reporting these crisis they are, inadvertently, undermining the fundamental beliefs in glories of capitalism.  At the very least, negative media coverage of globalization has caused people to question the extent to which Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobile serve their interests.  Free/fair trade and globalization are viewed as positive developments under liberalism.  Indeed, we argued above that globalization is essential for economic expansion. But corporate capitalists are concerned with their own corporation first and foremost.  For the general public, the drum-beat of media attention on the topics, "globalization" "NAFTA" "outsourcing" "free trade" have transformed these into pejorative terms anathema to most politicians - at least Democrats.  Even Republicans like Mitt Romney must promise to "bring American jobs back" (an unrealistic return to a unique historical epiphenomenon - American economic hegemony following WW II).  In conclusion, globalization - an economic imperative of capitalism for expansion and corporate profit motives -  coupled with the money to be made by media reporting these crises - has produced cracks in the Matrix propaganda machine.  The wider these cracks become, the more awareness their is, the sooner the final synthesis - communism - can emerge to take its rightful place.

B. Variants and Theorists:  I will address the differences between Classical Marxists thought and Neo-Marxist (critical theory) in the following paragraphs.

II. Ontological Assumptions About the Nature of World Politics:

A.    Epistemological Assumptions: How Do We Ascertain the "truth"? Does one "truth" exist?   Classical Marxists, certainly Karl Marx himself, were logical positivists.  If you read Marx's Das Kapitol (you deserve an award for wading all the way through long, tedious volumes) you will see that Marx is making a case based on logic and his detailed empirical examination of economic realities through history.  Certainly Marx believed that Realists and Liberals have the wrong view of history and reality but it is not because he rejects logical positivism per se it is but because he believes that other historians have been looking at the wrong units of analysis and they have been asking the wrong questions.  In short, Marx believes that there is an objective world out there that can be empirically ascertained if one designs your scientific analysis properly.  Neo-Marxists are more skeptical of logical positivism. They believe that the false consciousness pervades most scientists and economists and therefore obscures their ability to objectively assess reality.  We see things through the dominant economic period and we have a strong tendency to see what exists (or even what did exist) as the limit of what COULD exist.  Current realities distort our ability to see alternative futures.  Still, even Neo-Marxists believe that it is possible at least for the select few to "drop the scales from their eyes" and see the world as it objectively could be.  

B. Agent-Structure Problem: There may be a fundamental contradiction in Classical Marxist thinking or at the very least, there is a lack of clarity with respect to the agent-structure problem.  You will recall that the agent-structure problem is about the relative explanatory role of structural factors (e.g. economic imperatives) versus individual agents (individuals, political parties, or separate nation-states).  On the one hand, classical Marxist thinking seems to come down more on the side of structural factors.  After all, dialectical materialism seems to suggest an inevitable progression toward communism.  If the internal contradictions of capitalism are so powerful then why bother to write The Communist Manifesto and call on the workers to "throw off their chains."? They inevitably will throw them off anyway.  Lenin faced this practical reality following the Bolshevik Revolution.  The Russian workers were not often acting in their own interests - so he suggested that the Communist Party should operate as the "vanguard of the masses." (In effect, he reintroduced the importance of an agent - the Communist Politburo). 

       Following WW I and II how is one to explain the fact that German workers joined German Capitalists and English workers joined English Capitalists to fight one another.  Nationalism seems to be more powerful than class interests.  Finally, in our era, why the growing disillusionment with communism around the world? In response to all these questions, Neo-Marxists give much more credit to the concept of False Consciousness than Marx ever did.  Antonio Gramsci and Robert Cox, in particular, pay much more attention than Marx ever did to the power of political culture (what Marx dismissed as the relatively unimportant "superstructure").  What that means is that Neo-Marxists give more credit to the necessity of intellectual agents to try to change the dominant sociological structure (the mind-set) before you start calling for revolution to control economic control of the means of production.  You can think of individuals such as Gramsci as Constructivist-Marxists.

C. Nature of Man

1. Human nature is fundamentally good.  This is why if you eliminate the evil social system (capitalism) it is possible to have a utopia on earth.  Crime, war, poverty, and the need for government will disappear once full-blown communism emerges.

2. The Marxist position on the rationality of human nature is less clear.  See the above discussions of false consciousness.  However, ultimately, there is at core a rationality to mankind.   It is just difficult to peal back the veil of false-consciousness and this may require, the Neo-Marxist suggest, a fundamental change in the global mindset first to be able to "think outside" the capitalistic box.

3. Human nature is universal.  Of course there are different cultures but these different cultures are part of the false consciousness. Neo-Marxists (Gramsci in particular) believe that the process of translating Marxist ideas into a political culture and transforming that culture is difficult yet essential. Classical Marxists seemed to believe that what mattered was the state of economic development - not the political culture.

4. On the whole, Marxist theory would suggest that socio-economic class, not gender (or culture) is the most important unit of analysis.  Therefore, there is no fundamental differences between men and women.  Engels talks about how capitalism promotes the idea for men to treaty women as property.  There are Marxist-Feminists (e.g. Rosa Luxemburg) who argued that you need to fuse feminism with Marxism and eliminate patriarchy as well as capitalism.  But I will argue (you can disagree in discussion comments) that a Marxist-Feminist is an oxymoron.  Either the fundamental problem is capitalism or it is patriarchy.  I argue that a Marxist has to see more unity with members of their socio-economic class and deemphasize (perhaps to the point downplaying) differences in gender.  This logic lead to the notion in Marxist Russia in the other days that women should be free to engage in non-monogamous sexual activity just as men often had.

D. View of History Linear.  Dialectical Materialism.

E. Nature of World Order? 

1. Key Actors? In reality, THE key actor is socio-economic class.  However, in the contemporary world there are secondary actors that are still important - though the operate at the behest of socio-economic class.  MNCS are becoming more important than nation-states.  International Organizations like the WTO are important because, as Immanuel Wallerstein and other Neo-Marxists point out, they are necessary in a world of globalization to reinforce the dominance of global capitalism.  The "Dependencia" theorists (a group of Neo-Marxists) would add the notion of core v. periphery states; states with more developed economies and hence more powerful capitalists exploiting the interests of less developed states.  The goal of the developed states would be to keep the less developed states from growing or developing; i.e. to keep them in a constant state of dependency by limiting their economies to such things as extraction of natural resources.

2. Predominant form of Collective Identity? Under "false consciousness" it could be national or religious identity, for example.  But the ultimate real collective identity is socio-economic class.

3. Key Level of Analysis and Key Causal Factors? Economic and technological developments in the world and within particular states are the most important factors for Classical Marxists.  To this, Neo-Marxists would add cultural ideas that can obfuscate the real economic realities.

4. Tacit or Formal Rules that Regulate the Actions of Key Actors? Economic self-interest for the capitalists.

E.    When produces cooperation? What produces conflict?  Capitalism produces conflict and war. First, it produces disparities of wealth and these disparities lead to conflict.  Capitalists in different countries fight over control of new potential developing countries to exploit.  The developing states can resist with violent revolution. Communism will bring cooperation.  War can cease.

III.      Values: Normative Assumptions and Implications.  Ethics are defined by the extent to which certain action promote or thwart the development of communism and the overthrow of capitalism.  Any action that promotes communism is ethically justified.  Any action that thwarts communism is evil.  To use the terms of Just War in Marxist thought there are only rules of Jus Ad Bellum (the Justness of the War) - there are no rules with respect to Jus En Bello (justice in war).

IV.    Critique: Utility & Problems:  All theories have internal contradictions and problems both in their empirical and normative applications.  When examining theories you want to evaluate them in the following ways: I leave these to you in the discussion.  I will raise questions with respect to these in the discussion.

1. the validity of their assumptions. 

2. the clarity and  conceptual "baggage" of definitions.  A common problem is discourse is that people do not properly define their terms. Or worse yet, they use the same term different ways. 

3. their internal logical consistency: Are there non sequitors or logical fallacies even within their own internal logic? Remember, here the concern is NOT with the external validity of their conclusions but, taking the theory in its own terms, does it make internal sense?

4. their external validity i.e. their descriptive, explanatory, and predictive utility:  Empirical theories are supposed to help us make sense of the world.  One theory is "better" than another theory to the extent that it is better at describing, explaining, and predicting the world (or certain sets of phenomena in the world).  Another way to think of it is to view theory as all about solving puzzles or providing meaning.  One important thing to realize is that no theory explains everything or solves all puzzles.  In physics, Einstein looked (in vein) his whole life for one grand theory that would unite all the forces.  He never found it.  It may be the case that you come to the conclusion that you have to use different IR theories to explain different phenomena.  Another way to look at this is to view theories as paradigms realizing that in explaining some puzzles they actually obfuscate other puzzles.  Also, some theories might have high predictive utility but very little descriptive or explanatory utility.  Theories must also tell a story about the world not just make predictions about the world.

5. their normative utility: Finally, a normative theory about politics must provide guidance to individuals, groups, societies, governmental policy-makers as they make decisions.  The more that a theory relies on structural factors (e.g. polarity) the less useful it will be for guiding policy (as it is difficult for one state to influence the polarity of the system). That does not mean that that theory is a bad theory in empirical terms just that it has low normative utility.