Comparison Of Marxism In International Relations Theory

1632 Words7 Pages
Comparison in Definition
Marxism in international relations was a reaction to liberal economic theories advanced by thinkers such as Adam Smith. Smith argued that free market capitalism, without any role of government or backstage actor would be the most efficient. For him, the notion of the “invisible hand” summed up this idea that a free market without government controls will be the most optimal outcomes. Much of Smith’s ideas of a free market economy are based on the rules of supply and demand, and also the importance of competition. In this economic system, businesses will compete with one another in their products and consumers as a result of this competition, will benefit since it will lead businesses to make the best product at the lowest costs. Then, the price of this product will be reflected in the supply and demand which is the more of a product that is available, the less demand that there will be, and vice versa.
Meanwhile in realism, for which international relations are driven by the states’ security and material interests defined in terms of
…show more content…
Namely, they study how those in economic control use and exploit the worker, and then it is the economic elites who get the vast majority of the financial benefits from the sale of that product. Furthermore, this is not a new phenomenon in the 1800s, but rather, Marxists believe that there have been numerous cases, throughout the centuries of imbalances of economic power between the workers, and the economic elites who run production.
For Marx, this economic exploitation could be in the private sector or and as later Marxists in the field of international relations focus on, it could be the ways that the state is using economic power to exploit others. Marx viewed the state as a vehicle for the economically wealthy and powerful in the country to further exploit the power and to make them
Get Access