Marxism Global Political Economy

Marxism Global Political EconomyThis paper is aimed at addressing and evaluating the theoretical perspectives of Liberal and Marxist ideas, as wellspring as investigating their theoretical perspectives in relation to International Political Economy (IPE). Researchers perusal IPE use a variety of theories for different purposes, much(prenominal) as predicting the stability of economical situations, or predicting economical increase of a state among others. Other semipolitical and economical analysts argue that valid predictions be more or less impossible because in that location be too many factors that may have contingent influence on the events. Nevertheless, every(prenominal) these people utilize their theoretical knowledge in attempt to get an understanding of the world. However, it is charge questioning the reason for such rich variety of theories being out there. According to Robert Cox (1986), there are two reasons Theory always has a goal and serves the interest s of particular people. For example, the goals of loose theories are interested with establishing cooperation and increasing capital, turn critical theories (also labelled Marxist) are focused on removing the economic, gender or environmental differences within the society. Both Liberal theories have emerged in the 19th century in Britain during the period of industrial revolution in reply to monarchical absolutism. Later in 19th century, Marxism has emerged as a response to the liberal thought. Wealthier states and item-by-items tend to party favor liberal theories, which are in line with their interests and do non menace their comfort, art object those who are less satisfied with their socioeconomic position tend to adopt the critical theories channelise of locating. It is expenditure noning that it is difficult and almost impossible to prove a speculation right or wrong, therefore, induction can be interpreted in different ways depending on ones goals and views (OBri en Williams, 2007). Therefore different legionsile theoretical perspectives, such as Marxism and Liberalism, have developed. Marxists and Liberalist mainly differ in their views about the role of case-by-case and role of state in IPE (Raico, 1992).Liberals are concerned about variety of actors ranging from a single individual to particular interest groups, firms and corporations, to state. Nevertheless, liberals starting point for analytical evaluation is the individuals needs this idea is at the center of neoclassical economic theory. Therefore, liberals look at behaviour of states, firms and individuals in order to analyze global economy, while keeping in mind that the individual is the main actor. The idea is that individuals in their pursuit of self- kale within the war-ridden environment leave alone proceeds and therefore will increase the benefits economic exchange for the masses. Companies and firms play a very important role for the liberals, as they are perceived as a source of economic expenditure and wealth (Jackson Sorensen, 2003). As mentioned above, they believe that state cannot stand as a single actor, receivable to the idea that it is being influenced by many different factors. Liberals express negativity towards state, since they believe that politics should not get involved into the economics. They also, believe that if the market will be free of political influence, which is seen as the wildness that is distorting the benefits while producing additional costs to the market participants, and will not interfere with the wasting disease, production and exchange mechanisms hence everyone will benefit. Economic liberalists Friedrich Hayeks (1992) slogan laissez-faire is a well example of the liberal view in relation the state. Pluralist (liberal) approach suggests that cooperation is the key and the way forward where people and states can benefit, opposed to the mesh suggested by class-analytic (Marxist) approach. They argue that conflicts should be avoided, and a peaceful resolution should be found through the course of effect and reason of sides that will benefit both, as in liberal view, the world political and economical mechanisms are interdependent rather than anarchical (Connell, 1995). Transnational Corporations (TNCs) are believed to benefit both host and home countries, where it boosts economies of host states by means of transfer of capital, access to market, and technology, as well as benefiting the home country where TNC is seen as a mix of capital management skills and technology. such(prenominal) perspective is referred to as positive-sum game and the idea is that by means of cooperation everyone benefits and prospers. Liberal theorists highlight the fact that in their view the market is located in the eye of economic life and economic progress, which occurs because individuals are pursuing their goals. A liberal theory of comparative favor suggests that even if one country is producing mo re goods than another country, distribute betwixt the two countries will benefit both. This view is opposed to Marxist theory of zero-sum game, which claims that in order for one to gain the other has to lose. famed Liberal Political Economists, such as David Ricardo and Adam Smith advocated state non-interference in free trade and economy. Various well-known slogans have emerged during that period, such as laissez faire (the doctrine of unrestricted freedom in commerce) and mnd v de lui-mm (the world gos by itself) (Raico, 1977).Contemporary global political economy is mostly being governed according to the principles of liberal political theory. Most forms of economic activity are mental process according to the liberal rules and policy regulations and are based on the goal of free trade. It is evident that directly money flows almost freely in and out of countries via stock markets, banks, and big financial corporations. Nowadays liberalism cannot be describe with a unitary definition, as different liberal movements have deviated from the core theoretical ideology of liberalism to certain degree thus producing neo-liberal theories that are approximatelywhat different from the ones described by founding fathers of liberalism. It is worth remembering Fukuyamas (1989) work and his speculative prophesy of the end of history, where he argued that liberalism is about to become an only ideology of upmost significance thus ceasing the conflict between the theorists of global political economy. Despite Fukuyamas statement, today, after 22 years China one of the most developed economies in the world is still a communistic state, as well as few other countries. Nevertheless, most of the countries in the world are rule by private stage businesses and corporations with some involvement of the state, as described by Keohane (2002). Liberals suggest that open markets will produce more wealth and will aid economies expenditure around the globe benefiting the huma nity. Economic trouble is believed to be triggered by the disruptions caused from involvement of the state into the economy. Therefore, liberals are promoting globalization, which they perceive as a force of good that removes artificial boundaries and facilitates growth of production thus contributing to overall wealth of the society (Helleiner, 2003).A banding of critical theories have emerged in response to growing popularity of liberalism in 19th century. Unlike liberalists who are look at individuals and states, these theorists are looking at other units of analysis. The main units of analysis in Marxist theories are class and interest of work class rather than state. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are the founding fathers of this political movement and the ones that unleashed the conflict between capitalists and workers. Resolution of this conflict was possible only if workers seized power (Marx and Engels, 1848). Marxist writers reject the significance of the individuals o f liberal theory, and focus on the significance of the class instead. Marxists perceive capitalist relations being inherently exploitatory (Raico, 1992). There has been a lot of debate in relation to definition of class in the books therefore, in this paper class is outlined according to OBrien and Williams (2007) as rising from ns psitin in the structur of prductin. Karl Marx himself seen the society as a multi-layered cake, with the bourgeoisie (capitalists) sitting on top, owning and positive the means of production, and proletariat (workers), who sell their labour to the capitalists as a bottom layer of the cake. Therefore, Marxist pursual suggest that the firm and the capitalistic regime itself are exploitative and unfair in relation to working class. Marxists see transnational corporations (TNCs) as tools of oppression and exploitation of the working class, because of their power to underlyingize and concentrate capital, while expressing the dominance, which is the key fea ture of imperialism (monarchy). Such perspective suggests the state is representative of class interests and not the communal interests. In this respect, the state has a role of executive committee of the ruling class and sometimes referred to as an self-sustaining agent of exploitation by some Marxist writers (Conway, 1987). This idea of exploitation and dominance among the societies and within them is central to Marxist theories global political economy. According to class-analytic approach to global economy, under capitalism workers are not fairly rewarded for their labour, economic relations are being contrasted and unstable. Meaning, that consequently, the rich will become richer and the ugly will become poorer and the gap between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat will continue to increase (Gilbert, 2008). Such economical relations are believed to lead to decrease in wages of labourers, uneven growth, as some centres increase their capital and growth at the expense of oth ers, which in its turn leads to conflicts between countries, as well as insufficient consumption and overproduction thus affecting hearty stability and producing fluctuations in the business sector (OBrien and Williams, 2007). For example, dependency theory suggests that poor countries have faced barriers to further development as the consequent of being economically exploited by developed countries (Dos Santos, 1970). This refers to a zero-sum game described above. Therefore, the conflict between states is unavoidable because of the drive for profit. Consequently, liberals strain protection of their state, which in turn leads to conflict and war. For example, the famous Marxist theory about imperialism written by Vladimir Lenin (1917/1969) encapsulates two explanations of capitalist development. First part of his theory is concerned with growth of financial capital and the coalition of industrial capital and finance to form monopolies that sought to produce profit by means of ov erseas lending. The second part of Lenins theory is concerned about insufficient consumption in domestic market. Insufficient demand on domestic markets has forced capitalists to enter foreign markets repayable to inability to maintain their profit rates. Such perspective have lead Lenin to a conclusion that such competition would inevitably lead to conflict and consequently to war.Marxists also tend to argue against globalization, which in their view represents an ideological intervention into global economy, which acts in support of free markets as well as a tool used to pursue interests of the capitalist power over labourers. Some researchers argued, that globalization facilitated by the neoliberal political movements is an instrument of global management and liberalization and is based on misinformation and deception of the masses (Cox, 1996 Gill, 1993). some other clash between the ideologies has occurred in the 21th century, when members of world elites have tried to alter co nstitutional laws in favour of neoliberal principles in various institutions, including International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organization. Neoliberals met the opposition of fond political movements trying to protect environmental policy, raise work standards, and facilitate gender equity and seek economic justice (OBrien and Williams, 2007).According to economic liberals, market economy is the way to prosperity for all, and should be hightail it according to its own economic laws without the interference of the state. Global market economy is a sphere described by a positive-sum game model, which advocates that economic exchange will maximise profits of firms, individuals and households, and consequently all members of society will benefit from it.Marxists see the economy as an instrument of exploitation of lower social classes (workers) these interactions are highlighted by the inequalities between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Critical theories advocate, the political stra tegies are being determined by socioeconomic context. The class that exercises economical power also controls the political power of the state. Marxists believe that capitalist development is uneven and is bound to produce conflicts between states and individuals.Global Political Economy can be defined as the relationship between states and markets on an international scale. Research of this relationship has given birth to conflicting Marxist and Liberal theories discussed in this paper. As it was already mentioned above, each theory serves the interests of particular groups of people with particular goals, and unless the major part of the international political society will come to some sort of an agreement and find a way to cooperate, conflicts will always emerge, and conflicts will always result in losses for someone.