Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Both Marxism and Realism, despite originating from distinct intellectual traditions, offer compelling, albeit contrasting, explanations for state behavior in the international arena. Realism, born out of the experiences of inter-state war and power politics, posits that states are rational, self-interested actors operating in an anarchic system. Marxism, rooted in historical materialism, views international relations as a reflection of the global capitalist system and class struggle. While seemingly opposed, a closer examination reveals surprising commonalities in their analytical frameworks, particularly regarding their shared skepticism of idealism and their focus on material capabilities.
Shared Materialist Foundations
Both theories share a fundamentally materialist outlook. Realism, particularly structural realism (Waltz, 1979), emphasizes the distribution of material capabilities – primarily military and economic power – as the key determinant of international outcomes. Similarly, Marxism views economic structures and the control of the means of production as the driving forces behind international relations. Both reject idealist notions of morality or international law as primary shapers of state behavior, instead focusing on tangible factors.
Emphasis on Power – Though Differently Defined
While defining power differently, both theories recognize its centrality. For Realists, power is primarily military and economic strength used to ensure survival and maximize influence. Marxists, however, define power in terms of class control and the ability to exploit labor. Despite this difference, both acknowledge that power dynamics are fundamental to understanding international interactions. The competition for resources, markets, and influence – whether framed as great power rivalry or capitalist expansion – is central to both perspectives.
Skepticism Towards International Institutions
Both Marxism and Realism exhibit skepticism towards the efficacy of international institutions. Realists view institutions as merely reflections of the underlying distribution of power, serving the interests of dominant states (Mearsheimer, 2001). They argue that institutions lack independent power and are easily disregarded when state interests clash. Marxists see international institutions as tools of the capitalist class, designed to maintain and expand the global capitalist system. They argue that these institutions perpetuate inequalities and serve the interests of core capitalist states at the expense of the periphery.
Focus on Conflict and Competition
Both theories, though for different reasons, anticipate a world characterized by conflict and competition. Realism, based on the anarchic nature of the international system, predicts a constant struggle for power and security. Marxism, focusing on the inherent contradictions of capitalism, anticipates conflict arising from competition for resources, markets, and the exploitation of labor. Both theories, therefore, offer pessimistic views of the prospects for lasting peace and cooperation.
Rejection of Idealism
Both schools of thought fundamentally reject the core tenets of idealism. Idealism, with its emphasis on international law, morality, and the possibility of collective security, is seen as naive and unrealistic by both Realists and Marxists. They both believe that states are ultimately driven by self-interest, and that attempts to create a harmonious international order based on idealistic principles are doomed to fail.
| Feature | Realism | Marxism |
|---|---|---|
| Core Assumption | States are rational, self-interested actors in an anarchic system. | International relations are shaped by the global capitalist system and class struggle. |
| View of Power | Military and economic strength. | Class control and the ability to exploit labor. |
| International Institutions | Reflections of power distribution; serve dominant states. | Tools of the capitalist class; perpetuate inequalities. |
| Outlook on Conflict | Constant struggle for power and security. | Conflict arising from capitalist contradictions. |
Conclusion
In conclusion, despite their divergent ideological origins and normative commitments, Marxism and Realism share significant commonalities in their analytical approaches to international politics. Both prioritize material factors, recognize the centrality of power (albeit defined differently), express skepticism towards international institutions, and anticipate a world characterized by conflict. Recognizing these shared assumptions provides a more nuanced understanding of both theories and their enduring relevance in explaining the complexities of the international system.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.