There is a saying that says that something good never lasts for too long. This is perhaps the time in which we have reached that point in economics, aspects of society, and philosophical ideas that seemed to have been working out properly for the last few decades, but not anymore. However, before any attempt to revolutionize these compendium of fields that affects us all, first we have to understand what may have caused these fields of research to collapse. Marxist theory may be appropriate to explain these recent changes. According to Rhonada Levine, it is difficult to simply denote Marxist Theory as a sociological approach to explain aspects of human behavior, and can be extended into the field of economics and international relations. Indeed, this is why Marxist Theory can be used in order to explain the recent revolutionary outbreaks in the Middle East, and the capitalistic failure that many people who live under a laissez-fare society seem to believe.
According to the famous social contract theorist John Locke, human beings imminently reach a point where they have to form a society and give power to a central form of government in order to increase their opportunities for life, liberty, and property ownership (Claeys, 2008). In basic terms, this is how humans came about to establish a form of government. It becomes even more complex when people from different parts of the world establish different forms of government and how these governments later interact with their own citizens and outside entities. According to Rhonda Levine, Marxism predicts that the proletariat will seek a revolution from the bourgeoisie when they have tolerated enough abuses from the upper class, in this case the bourgeoisie, and the class difference has become very blatant. These basic definitions can be applied broadly to different forms of governments, mainly the major Western democracies and the type of dictatorship regimes that are falling apart in the Middle Eastern Hemisphere.
The major difference between both types of governments is the way their proletariat class perceives the notion of being undermined or exploited by the upper class. In the case of the Western democracies, citizens compare sociological differences in terms of “life-chances and opportunities” (Levine). This can be easily shown since we live in a Western democracy where certain classes of individuals can reach unfathomable wealth whereas others go through their lives constrained by a glass-ceiling. In the case of Middle Eastern governments, the differences between the proletariat and the bourgeoisies manifest themselves through violence, clear differences in wealth, and the lack of universal human rights such as freedom of expression. Proletariats living under these regimes can easily view themselves as the exploited and identify the exploiter as a cruel ruler who employs violent methods to implement his will, which suffices the need to start a conflict model. (McLellan, 2011). This is one of the reasons the Middle East has undergone a series of revolutions, aided by the proletariat and by capitalist nations.
With this in mind, Marxism starts to play a major role in international relations along with its component in economic theory. This can be referred to as Marxist capitalism. According to Hugo Radice (2011), it is under the interests of a capitalist society to expand its products to novel markets. As the market grows, though, the difference in wealth and status between the upper and bottom class increases as well. When markets expand internationally, they attempt to create a “legal monopoly” in order to indefinitely provide services to a market (Radice, 2011). In the case of Western expansion, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa have seen imperialism under the British Empire and corporate expansion under American markets. The next question to ask is whether these expansions create stability or simply create fertile grounds for a Pandora box of social revolutions that may cost the lives to millions of people and cause a restructuring of the system. The hegemony theory in international relations says that when there is a dominant state, there is greater world stability (Goldstein, Pevehouse, 2012). Thereby, according to Levine (1998), it is in a nation’s interest to continue growing at any expense in order to achieve successful politics with other nations. This means that a company or a nation-state needs to continue expanding, either through economic trade or imperialistic occupation, in order to maintain stability back at home and between other nations. However, this stability comes at the cost of wealthy nations taking advantage of less opulent states. Levine also suggests that as capitalism expands, more and more nations seek to obtain “membership” into the “white collar,” or bourgeoisie, status by following the example of higher ranking states. This implies that more and more markets enter a form of competition where in order for one state to continue its membership in the capitalism race for wealth, it has to do what the economic theory demands: increase revenue at the cost of other states. Not to mention, our world cannot supply an unlimited supply of resources.
A related example can be viewed through the “Currency War” currently undergoing in the international market. According to BBC news, major states worldwide have engaged in a currency war by trying to devalue their currencies so as to decrease the cost of their goods, thereby selling more compared to other international markets. In response, other major markets respond the same way. The ramifications of such actions have already being proven catastrophic when in the 1930s countries were devaluing their currencies, which was a major contributor to the Great Depression (BBC, 15 February 2013). In this “Currency War,” nation states with more stable economies can manipulate their currencies more easily and hurt the economies of smaller nations. Marxism accurately predicts that more wealthy groups can take advantage of less fortunate ones.
Furthermore, as it was stated earlier, Marxism predicts that a capitalist society needs to expand its market. As the level of expansion increases and delves itself into another state’s internal matters, along comes the risk of military intervention. As a capitalist nation becomes more pervasive in the market of another state, the latter may suffer from assimilation from the capitalist nation’s cultural ideals, and suffer from an increased wealth difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Rubenstein, 1987). Even if some people decide to accept the way of life of the “industrial” nation, there will also be some resistance against a change of ideology, culture, and life-style (Rubenstein, 1987). People who resist the industrial nation then resort to anarchy and what they would consider a Marxist social revolution in order to overthrow the pervasive influence of the industrial nation. Their discontent may derive from being stripped from their cultural ideals, exploitation of their natural resources, and the great inequality they come to notice when they see they are not benefiting from the industrial markets opening in their country. As it is the case, the United States’ involvement in Middle Eastern oil has been one of the major reasons for its continued presence in that part of the world. According to McGregor and Zarembk (2010), the 911 attacks were considered as retaliation against U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and the expansion of American ideology. The case is too complex to be explained solely by Marxist Theory, but it does uphold one of the basic predictions predicted by Karl Marx; that the differences in class between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will grow until this difference becomes intolerable or simply too extensive that the proletariat will rise in some form of revolution. In the case of terrorism, the definition applies in a more specific context. Muslim extremists perpetrated the attacks on 911 thinking that they were contributing towards a social revolution against western expansion in the Middle East. The reality is that this form of social revolution has little effect as it can be confronted violently, and it did when the U.S. decided to deploy forces in various Middle Eastern countries. Even more, the tactics employed by terrorist organizations tend to be too violent so as to be accepted by the majority of the proletariat.
The next question to confront is what can be done to prevent terrorism and the never-ending greed of capitalism. From a Marxist perspective, the best solution would be to decrease the wealth difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This can be achieved through more government regulation and a higher government involvement from the people. This would resolve some internal problems. However, in order to prevent terrorism, there has to be a greater consensus in domestic and foreign affairs. The international community would have to agree that a nation would suffer from severe punishment if it were to fund terrorist organizations. This would have a major impact on terrorism since terrorist organizations need money to perpetrate their criminal activities. Marxism, however, would not offer a very clear solution to terrorism since terrorism is perpetrated by a few, and not by the majority of the proletariat. Indeed, a Marxist would say that terrorism is another faction that unlike the bourgeoisie, it keeps the proletariat oppressed through violence and not through class status.
In sum, Marxist theory is of significant avail in explaining current issues in society and economics. It is helpful in explaining the social revolutions the Middle East is experiencing, and the dissatisfaction people living under a free-market seem to claim due to the exponential increase in wealth only by a few individuals. Even more, Marxist theory helps to explain the emergence of terrorist organizations as a way to reflect the need for less exploitation from the bourgeoisie perpetrated only by a few. To prevent terrorism, Marxism would suggest that the majority of the wealth be distributed more evenly amongst the proletariat. However, Marxism also explains that resistance will be met when transitioning to a more evenly distributed economy. This has to be done peacefully and in an intelligent manner that would allow us not to revolutionize our form of capitalism, but to evolve it into something that works better.
References
Eric, R. C. (2008). “The Private Society and the Liberal Public Good in John
Locke's Thought”. Social Philosophy & Policy. Print.
Geary, Dick. (January, 2011). The Cambridge History of Twenty-Century
Political Thought. London: The Oxford University Press. Print
Levine, Rhonda. (1998). “Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements
and Theoretical Debates”. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: Boston.
Web.
McGregor, David & Zarambka, Paul (2010). “Socialism and Democracy:
Marxism, Conspiracy and 911”. Volume 24, Issue 2. Web.
Radice, H. (2011). “Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism:
Capital & Class. London: The Oxford University Press. Print.
Rubenstein, R. E. (1987). Alchemists of Revolution: Terrorism In The Modern
World. NewYork: Basic Books. Print.
Susen, S. (2012). “Open Marxism Against and Beyond the Great Enclosure:
Reflections on How (not) to Crack Capitalism”. Journal of Classical
Sociology. Print.
According to the famous social contract theorist John Locke, human beings imminently reach a point where they have to form a society and give power to a central form of government in order to increase their opportunities for life, liberty, and property ownership (Claeys, 2008). In basic terms, this is how humans came about to establish a form of government. It becomes even more complex when people from different parts of the world establish different forms of government and how these governments later interact with their own citizens and outside entities. According to Rhonda Levine, Marxism predicts that the proletariat will seek a revolution from the bourgeoisie when they have tolerated enough abuses from the upper class, in this case the bourgeoisie, and the class difference has become very blatant. These basic definitions can be applied broadly to different forms of governments, mainly the major Western democracies and the type of dictatorship regimes that are falling apart in the Middle Eastern Hemisphere.
The major difference between both types of governments is the way their proletariat class perceives the notion of being undermined or exploited by the upper class. In the case of the Western democracies, citizens compare sociological differences in terms of “life-chances and opportunities” (Levine). This can be easily shown since we live in a Western democracy where certain classes of individuals can reach unfathomable wealth whereas others go through their lives constrained by a glass-ceiling. In the case of Middle Eastern governments, the differences between the proletariat and the bourgeoisies manifest themselves through violence, clear differences in wealth, and the lack of universal human rights such as freedom of expression. Proletariats living under these regimes can easily view themselves as the exploited and identify the exploiter as a cruel ruler who employs violent methods to implement his will, which suffices the need to start a conflict model. (McLellan, 2011). This is one of the reasons the Middle East has undergone a series of revolutions, aided by the proletariat and by capitalist nations.
With this in mind, Marxism starts to play a major role in international relations along with its component in economic theory. This can be referred to as Marxist capitalism. According to Hugo Radice (2011), it is under the interests of a capitalist society to expand its products to novel markets. As the market grows, though, the difference in wealth and status between the upper and bottom class increases as well. When markets expand internationally, they attempt to create a “legal monopoly” in order to indefinitely provide services to a market (Radice, 2011). In the case of Western expansion, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa have seen imperialism under the British Empire and corporate expansion under American markets. The next question to ask is whether these expansions create stability or simply create fertile grounds for a Pandora box of social revolutions that may cost the lives to millions of people and cause a restructuring of the system. The hegemony theory in international relations says that when there is a dominant state, there is greater world stability (Goldstein, Pevehouse, 2012). Thereby, according to Levine (1998), it is in a nation’s interest to continue growing at any expense in order to achieve successful politics with other nations. This means that a company or a nation-state needs to continue expanding, either through economic trade or imperialistic occupation, in order to maintain stability back at home and between other nations. However, this stability comes at the cost of wealthy nations taking advantage of less opulent states. Levine also suggests that as capitalism expands, more and more nations seek to obtain “membership” into the “white collar,” or bourgeoisie, status by following the example of higher ranking states. This implies that more and more markets enter a form of competition where in order for one state to continue its membership in the capitalism race for wealth, it has to do what the economic theory demands: increase revenue at the cost of other states. Not to mention, our world cannot supply an unlimited supply of resources.
A related example can be viewed through the “Currency War” currently undergoing in the international market. According to BBC news, major states worldwide have engaged in a currency war by trying to devalue their currencies so as to decrease the cost of their goods, thereby selling more compared to other international markets. In response, other major markets respond the same way. The ramifications of such actions have already being proven catastrophic when in the 1930s countries were devaluing their currencies, which was a major contributor to the Great Depression (BBC, 15 February 2013). In this “Currency War,” nation states with more stable economies can manipulate their currencies more easily and hurt the economies of smaller nations. Marxism accurately predicts that more wealthy groups can take advantage of less fortunate ones.
Furthermore, as it was stated earlier, Marxism predicts that a capitalist society needs to expand its market. As the level of expansion increases and delves itself into another state’s internal matters, along comes the risk of military intervention. As a capitalist nation becomes more pervasive in the market of another state, the latter may suffer from assimilation from the capitalist nation’s cultural ideals, and suffer from an increased wealth difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie (Rubenstein, 1987). Even if some people decide to accept the way of life of the “industrial” nation, there will also be some resistance against a change of ideology, culture, and life-style (Rubenstein, 1987). People who resist the industrial nation then resort to anarchy and what they would consider a Marxist social revolution in order to overthrow the pervasive influence of the industrial nation. Their discontent may derive from being stripped from their cultural ideals, exploitation of their natural resources, and the great inequality they come to notice when they see they are not benefiting from the industrial markets opening in their country. As it is the case, the United States’ involvement in Middle Eastern oil has been one of the major reasons for its continued presence in that part of the world. According to McGregor and Zarembk (2010), the 911 attacks were considered as retaliation against U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and the expansion of American ideology. The case is too complex to be explained solely by Marxist Theory, but it does uphold one of the basic predictions predicted by Karl Marx; that the differences in class between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will grow until this difference becomes intolerable or simply too extensive that the proletariat will rise in some form of revolution. In the case of terrorism, the definition applies in a more specific context. Muslim extremists perpetrated the attacks on 911 thinking that they were contributing towards a social revolution against western expansion in the Middle East. The reality is that this form of social revolution has little effect as it can be confronted violently, and it did when the U.S. decided to deploy forces in various Middle Eastern countries. Even more, the tactics employed by terrorist organizations tend to be too violent so as to be accepted by the majority of the proletariat.
The next question to confront is what can be done to prevent terrorism and the never-ending greed of capitalism. From a Marxist perspective, the best solution would be to decrease the wealth difference between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This can be achieved through more government regulation and a higher government involvement from the people. This would resolve some internal problems. However, in order to prevent terrorism, there has to be a greater consensus in domestic and foreign affairs. The international community would have to agree that a nation would suffer from severe punishment if it were to fund terrorist organizations. This would have a major impact on terrorism since terrorist organizations need money to perpetrate their criminal activities. Marxism, however, would not offer a very clear solution to terrorism since terrorism is perpetrated by a few, and not by the majority of the proletariat. Indeed, a Marxist would say that terrorism is another faction that unlike the bourgeoisie, it keeps the proletariat oppressed through violence and not through class status.
In sum, Marxist theory is of significant avail in explaining current issues in society and economics. It is helpful in explaining the social revolutions the Middle East is experiencing, and the dissatisfaction people living under a free-market seem to claim due to the exponential increase in wealth only by a few individuals. Even more, Marxist theory helps to explain the emergence of terrorist organizations as a way to reflect the need for less exploitation from the bourgeoisie perpetrated only by a few. To prevent terrorism, Marxism would suggest that the majority of the wealth be distributed more evenly amongst the proletariat. However, Marxism also explains that resistance will be met when transitioning to a more evenly distributed economy. This has to be done peacefully and in an intelligent manner that would allow us not to revolutionize our form of capitalism, but to evolve it into something that works better.
References
Eric, R. C. (2008). “The Private Society and the Liberal Public Good in John
Locke's Thought”. Social Philosophy & Policy. Print.
Geary, Dick. (January, 2011). The Cambridge History of Twenty-Century
Political Thought. London: The Oxford University Press. Print
Levine, Rhonda. (1998). “Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements
and Theoretical Debates”. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers: Boston.
Web.
McGregor, David & Zarambka, Paul (2010). “Socialism and Democracy:
Marxism, Conspiracy and 911”. Volume 24, Issue 2. Web.
Radice, H. (2011). “Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism:
Capital & Class. London: The Oxford University Press. Print.
Rubenstein, R. E. (1987). Alchemists of Revolution: Terrorism In The Modern
World. NewYork: Basic Books. Print.
Susen, S. (2012). “Open Marxism Against and Beyond the Great Enclosure:
Reflections on How (not) to Crack Capitalism”. Journal of Classical
Sociology. Print.