An evaluation of the Marxist view of the relationship between states and global capital.
According to Marxist theory, states are fundamentally shaped by the interests of the capitalist class, using their power to protect and advance the accumulation of capital on a global scale.
·
Text size
This perspective emphasises the role of states in facilitating the exploitation of labour and resources for the benefit of the capitalist elite. In contrast to liberal views that emphasise state sovereignty and autonomy, Marxists argue that states are fundamentally entwined with the dynamics of global capitalism, serving as key actors in the reproduction of capitalist relations of production (Teschke, 2008).
This publication acknowledges the insightful claims made by Marxism regarding the relationship between states and global capital. However, it argues that focusing solely on class and capital distribution is not sufficient to explain complex foreign policy dynamics. Instead, this publication will focus on the role of knowledge and warfare in this context. While knowledge is an important aspect of International Relations, its role in Marxist theory has been largely overlooked.
This publication will argue that the distribution of knowledge is instrumentalised for capitalist interests. Therefore, it is important to recognise the significance of knowledge to Marxist theory, given its influence on power dynamics and foreign policy decisions. In this context, the concept of knowledge, understood in the form of asymmetric information, technological advancement and expertise, plays a pivotal role in shaping the conduct of states in the global arena (Schrag, 1986; Peters, 2003).
The control and dissemination of knowledge can serve as a mechanism for maintaining and exercising hegemony, as well as for coercion and the exploitation of others in pursuit of capitalist interests. Furthermore, the connection between knowledge and warfare is conceivable, as technological superiority and strategic intelligence frequently determine the outcomes of conflicts. By incorporating these aspects into the analysis, a more comprehensive understanding of how states operate within the framework of global capitalism can be achieved.
With regard to the war aspect, which is inextricably linked with the knowledge aspect, the publication argues, in line with Luxemburg (1913), that imperialist states wage wars with the intention of expanding the capitalist system and opening up more markets to satisfy their economic needs. This implies that Marxism is still relevant in the study of international relations, since it allows us to examine the interrelationship between power, knowledge, and capital at the global scale. By analysing how states employ military force to secure economic interests and maintain dominance, we can gain insight into the underlying motivations driving foreign policy decisions.
The publication will proceed as follows. First, examining the intersections between knowledge, warfare and global capital within the Marxist framework. While then exploring the ways in which Marxist theory can help understand the interconnectedness between knowledge and warfare in the context of global capital.
Why is knowledge relevant?
Gramsci posits that education is a tool of the bourgeoisie, used to impose hegemony and rule the proletariat with consent (Cox, 1983). This argument can be expanded to include the concept of historical materialism, as outlined by Marx, who posits that historical materialism is not static, but rather dependent on prevailing social structures of the ruling classes (Teschke, 2008; Godziewski, 2024).
The question of whether the British hegemony of the early nineteenth century to mid-20 th century, colloquially known as Pax Britannica was any different, from the later and continued global hegemony of the United States, also known as Pax Americana, is complex and ongoing as both states took very different strategies to achieve their respective hegemony’s.
This article gives insight and plausible solutions to the psychological impacts of unemployment amongst the youth and the next generation of adults in Malawi.
However, Marx's analysis is predicated on the supposition that materialism is characterised not by ideas but by economic realities and the relations that the economy creates (Godziewski, 2024). In this context, exploitation of workers for the profit of the bourgeoisie is the salient phenomenon. However, this assertion may only hold sway in the short term, given that the production of commodities is primarily about economic demand and therefore economic profit.
As the mode of production progresses, knowledge about production also plays an increasing role. Here it is interesting to consider Francis Schrag (1986), and his understanding of historical materialism as a dynamic process that encompasses not only economic factors but also cultural and ideological dimensions, something that traditional Marxism neglects (p. 44).
Although different, Schrag’s perspective complements the Marxist analysis by highlighting the ways in which knowledge production can be a form of coercion. By emphasising the role of education in shaping consciousness and perpetuating dominant ideologies, Schrag underscores the significance of knowledge as a tool for maintaining and reproducing social hierarchies and therefore also addressing the critique by Benno Teschke (2008) that Marxist theory lacks the consideration of agency (p. 169). This is evidenced by the increasing importance of skills and abilities in an already developed economy, and the consequent increase in educational demand.
However, the demand for "simple" labour remains, which shifts this demand to the international level, thus affecting domestic relations. This perspective aligns with Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, wherein the ruling class exerts influence through institutions like education to legitimise their power and control over society.
In this context, it can be argued that knowledge becomes a crucial site of struggle, where competing interests vie for dominance and influence. Moreover, the relationship between knowledge and power extends beyond the realm of education to encompass various forms of expertise, information, and technology that shape the contours of contemporary society (Peters, 2003; p. 117). Consequently, Marx's concept, in conjunction with Gramsci's understanding of structural hegemony, can be applied to the international.
These findings can be extrapolated to apply to the German context. With regard to economic development, Germany is regarded as an advanced country, both in terms of production and of its highly educated workforce. Nevertheless, given the country’s high demand for highly educated labour, a chronic shortage of skilled workers has existed in specific areas of manufacturing for an extended period (Joppke, 2024).
Consequently, Germany has increasingly sought to address these gaps in its domestic economy through the designation of countries with developing economies as sources of skilled labour, thereby maintaining its global economic competitiveness.
For instance, Germany has entered into bilateral agreements with Ghana and Jordan, which facilitate the movement of labour across national borders (BMZ, 2023). What is especially crucial to consider is the so-called ‘brain drain’ that follows such agreements, as the educated and young people are more likely to migrate to countries with better living standards while leaving their home economies behind (Docquier & Rapoport, 2012). Michael Peters (2003) delves into this concept of cognitive capitalism, highlighting similar to Schrag how knowledge production has become a central component of contemporary capitalism.
The shift towards knowledge-based production not only alters the nature of work itself but also challenges traditional Marxist perspectives on labour exploitation (Schrag, 1986; Peters, 2003). Although, it could be argued that remittances, the monetary transfers to families that remained in countries such as Ghana, benefit the economy (Docquier & Rapoport, 2012). However, this argument is flawed as it fails to acknowledge the inherent stability of a capitalist economic system. These countries remain dependent on global capital inflows from dominant capitalist countries. This situation thus implies that the knowledge aspect is controlled by countries with abundant global capital, which creates structures that perpetuate developing countries' dependence on that same knowledge.
This interconnectedness between knowledge, production and global dynamics serves to illustrate the ever-evolving nature of capitalist systems as originally stressed by Marx and Engels (Teschke, 2008; p. 165). As economies continue to advance, the demand for highly skilled labour intensifies, influencing both domestic and international labour markets. The shift towards a knowledge-based economy not only alters the nature of work but also impacts the power dynamics within and between states, thus challenging traditional Marxist perspectives on labour exploitation. This evolution serves to highlight the multifaceted nature of contemporary capitalism. In order to link this to the publication's question, it can be stated that global economic relationships represent an intricate web, which serves to underscore the complexity of modern capitalism.
The example of Germany's reliance on skilled labour from developing nations serves to exemplify the interplay between knowledge production, global labour markets, and power dynamics on a global scale. This reliance, while addressing immediate labour shortages, has a tendency to perpetuate a situation where developed countries retain the upper hand in terms of knowledge dissemination and economic structures. Consequently, this reinforces dependency among developing nations. As elucidated by Marx and Gramsci, the evolution of capitalist systems demonstrates the intricate interconnections between education, labour, and hegemony, which shape international relations, therefore I agree with the Marxist theory in the context of the aspect of knowledge.
War and Marxism
Additionally, it is imperative to grasp the manner in which knowledge about foreign countries impacts our interactions with them. In this regard, Gramsci's concept of structural hegemony is particularly pertinent. Gramsci postulated that war is not merely a military conflict; rather, it is an expression of class struggle and the exercise of hegemonic control (Teschke, 2008; Egan, 2014). In the context of Marxism, war is utilised by the dominant class to perpetuate their power and maintain a capitalist system (Luxemburg, 1913). While considering the findings from above it is conceivable that the dissemination of knowledge about other countries, their ideologies, and their roles in the global economy shapes perceptions of friend and foe, influencing international relations and justifying conflicts that serve the interests of dominant classes. In order to analyse modern warfare within the framework of Marxist theory and Gramscian concepts of hegemony and power dynamics, it is essential to understand these dynamics. The dissemination of knowledge about other nations can influence attitudes towards war, framing it within the narrative of class struggle and imperialist ambitions (Egan, 2014; p. 526).
The bourgeoisie's control over information can manipulate public opinion, portraying military interventions as necessary for protecting national interests while serving the economic agenda of the ruling class. An understanding of these power dynamics illuminates how states use knowledge to justify military actions and maintain dominance over both domestic and international affairs. Gramsci's insights on hegemony as discussed by Robert Cox (1983) offers a lens through which to analyse the role of education and information dissemination in shaping perceptions of war and the construction of enemies and allies in the global arena.
This interconnectedness between knowledge production, global dynamics and the evolving nature of capitalist systems underscores the necessity for a more nuanced understanding of these complex processes. Gramsci's insights on hegemony, integrated with an appreciation of the role of education, facilitate a deeper analysis, emphasising the intricate relationship between economic structures, knowledge dissemination and power relations on a global scale. This holistic approach enriches the analysis of states' roles in the perpetuation of capitalist systems amidst evolving modes of production and labour dynamics.
It is also beneficial to contrast these claims with those of Wallerstein and his world-systems theory, which emphasises the interconnectedness of economies and the hierarchical nature of global power dynamics (Teschke, 2008; el-Ojeili, 2015).
Wallerstein's framework serves to complement the discussion by highlighting how core nations, such as Germany, maintain their economic strength through the exploitation of peripheral nations. This perpetuates a system where knowledge dissemination and labour dynamics benefit the core at the expense of the periphery.
This unequal exchange, which is rooted in capitalist structures, serves to illustrate the enduring influence of developed nations over the global economic landscape. By examining Wallerstein's perspective alongside Marx and Gramsci, a comprehensive understanding emerges of the interconnections between economic structures, knowledge dissemination, and power relations, which shape the complexities of modern capitalism. This integrated analysis reveals the intricate web of dependencies that underpin global economic relationships, emphasising the need for a critical examination of the role of states in perpetuating unequal power dynamics on a global scale.
It is similarly pertinent to examine the largest military corporations on a global scale and their proportionate contribution to the economies of their respective countries.
For instance, the United States has a considerable proportion of its economy linked to the military-industrial complex, with major corporations such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing playing a pivotal role in influencing both domestic and foreign policy (Egan, 2014; Liang et. Al, 2023; Wezeman et. Al, 2024). This intertwining of economic interests with military strategies serves to illustrate the capitalist underpinnings of warfare and the global power dynamics at play. An analysis of the economic factors driving conflict provides insights into the interconnections between knowledge production, global dynamics, and the perpetuation of capitalist systems. In that context Benno Teschke (2008), notes that the capitalist economies experienced a “significant slump in the rates of return” before the outbreak of the first world war (p.
167).
The argument put forth is therefore that the maintenance of a military and a military arsenal contributes to the economic development of the countries concerned. In this context, wars result in increased demand for labour and increased production of, for example, weapons. It can therefore be argued that wars can be employed as a financial strategy to ensure that capitalist states can boost their own economies and open up new markets.
The intricate relationship between war and capitalism, is also being discussed by Daniel Egan (2014) who points out that Marxists who thematised warfare during the first world war took over a realist perspective on warfare and saw it similar to Clausewitz’s claims of warfare being the continuation of politics (p. 526). Marxists such as Lenin tend to emphasise capital and class struggle as the primary drivers of war. However, it is debatable whether the ruling class across different countries is motivated by the same factors.
One criticism of Marxism is that it implies predictability in the foreign policy decisions of the ruling class. Additionally, Marxism is inadequate in explaining the influence of identity, non-state actors, and alternative interests on foreign policy decision-making.
However, this criticism may be too Eurocentric, as an insightful study by Colomba-Petteng (2023) found that local elites in Sub-Saharan Africa, which are mainly comprised of security personnel, financially profit from European military interventions. Colomba-Petteng elucidates this phenomenon through the European policies that seek to establish security in unstable regions, thereby encouraging participation in security training with monetary rewards.
In conclusion, it is important to note that, as capitalist states exert a dominant influence in the field of weapon technology and training, developing countries are reliant upon the military knowledge of their more advanced counterparts. This implies that the training of military personnel or the training of personnel in the operation of modern weapons, or the acquisition of weapons in general, is contingent upon the interests of capitalist countries. This reliance on capitalist knowledge and technology serves to reinforce the existing power dynamics between nations, perpetuating a cycle where economic disparities persist and developing nations remain reliant on developed nations for military resources and expertise. This is particularly pertinent given that the security situation in the region remains unchanged, which raises the question of whether conflicts in undeveloped nations can be better explained by the Marxist theory due to global inequality.
In conclusion, the complex and interwoven relationships between capitalism, war, and the dissemination of knowledge highlight the multifaceted dynamics that shape the global power structure. As this publication has shown, Marxism is a helpful theory in explaining these dynamics.
The publication has shown how states utilise education and information to maintain their dominant positions and advance their economic interests through military strategies, in order to fully comprehend the nature of contemporary warfare. The unequal distribution of power, with developing countries reliant on capitalist knowledge and technology, reinforces the hegemonic control exerted by capitalist nations in international relations. This interplay highlights the necessity for a nuanced approach to the analysis of geopolitical realities and the multifaceted nature of global conflicts.
By integrating Marxist perspectives and insights on hegemony, a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between the production and dissemination of knowledge and military actions, as well as the perpetuation of inequalities on a global scale, may be gained. It must be noted that the aforementioned argument is open to criticism due to the possibility of oversimplification in relation to the interrelationship between capitalism, war, and the dissemination of knowledge and the mere focus of the Marxist theory on capital.
Although the Marxist perspective offers valuable insights, it may not fully capture the complexities of modern global dynamics. Additionally, in order to provide a more comprehensive analysis, it would be beneficial to consider other theoretical frameworks or perspectives in addition to the Marxist one, with the aim of elucidating the interplay between economic interests, military strategies, and knowledge dissemination. Furthermore, more research needs to be conducted on how the Marxist theory can respond to Eurocentrism.
Joppke, C. (2024) From asylum to labour: track change in German migration policy .
West European Politics, 47(4), pp.813-839.
Liang, X., Scarazzato, L., Béraud-Sudreau, L., Tian, N., Lopes da Silva, D., Choi, Y. and Kristjan Sild, E. (2023) The SIPRI Top 100 Arms-producing and Military Services Companies, 2022. SIPRI. https://doi.org/10.55163/UJNP6171 , accessed 01 May 2024.
Luxemburg, R. (1913) Die Weltpolitische Lage [Speech] Labour Movement Assembly.
Leipzig. 27 March
Peters, M. (2003) Post-structuralism and Marxism: education as knowledge capitalism . Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), pp.115-129.
Schrag, F. (1986) Education and historical materialism . Interchange, 17(3), pp.42-52.
Wezeman, P., Djokic, K., George, M., Hussain, Z. and Wezeman, S. (2024) Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2023 . SIPRI. https://doi.org/10.55163/PBRP4239 , accessed 01 May 2024.
The following article will address the question of whether religion best explains the foreign policy of Iran.
