Machiavelli and International Relations System †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Machiavelli and International Relations System. Answer: Introduction The study of international political science is approached by using three major theories, Marxist, Gramscism and liberal IR theories. The theoretical constructs have different perceptions and the ends differ starkly. The theories provide valid arguments about the cause and effects explained by these theories. In any type of analysis it would be nave to consider that an approach adopted by leader states or institutions is pure, and hence, it is important for the leaders to study and understand the impacts of the theories when constructing important administration policies. The paper provides an overview of the IR theories and explains the importance of the difference between these IR theories. Marxism is described as the social and political theory developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel in the 19th century. Marx attached great importance to the concepts of class, and as per his views, the class system was a dominant actor in the traditional international system (Buecker, 2003). According to Marx, the clashes in the international system were majorly due to the class conflicts. Marxism talked about the transformation of the society into a workforce largely due to the economic conditions (Buecker, 2003). Marx argued that this workforce is classified as a class in relation to the capital, however, it has not yet transformed into a class for itself. Marxism states that eventually this call would struggle, unite and become a class for itself(Buecker, 2003). Marx identified two main classes in the society, the bourgeoisie or the oppressor class and the proletariat or the working class as the oppressive class, and according to Marx eventually, the proletariat will unite strugg le and throw the oppressor and establish a new classless communist society (Burchill et al., 2013). Similarly, the international society is also divided between the capitalists (Bourgeoisie class) states which are the rich and the powerful states who have established political power over their colonies due to economic power of these powerful states. However, Marx did not consider nationalism and its immense consequences. Marx postulated that nationalism had no place in the proletariat organizations, however, his assumptions that the society infrastructure and division of labour are the factors which will influence the behaviour of communist society classes and states was largely disregarded by working class and bourgeois nationalism (Buecker, 2003)(Burchill et al., 2013). Scope of Marxism later expanded to explain the international relations (walt, 1998). Marxism and its conception to international relations, advocates communist society, and explained that the societies must witness not only economic, and political but a social change, and in the communist society, the means of production will be owned by the people equally and will not be concentrated in the hands of few. Marxist theory of international relations argues that the communist societies should witness social and economic equality. Marxist theory gives more importance to economic situation in the formation of international relations, and argues that the people who hold the economic control exploit the workers which relates to the modern day private sector (Schram, 1988). Marx talks about disproportionality and states that capitalist states would overproduce goods for capital gains. Marx suggests that disproportionality largely based on the anarchy of the industry and market would cause eco nomic depressions. In the international relations theory Marx also posited that capital will be accumulated among the wealthy will lead to improverishment of man(Baylis et al., 2017)y. Thus, the recent 2008 crisis, where the organizations accumulated wealth and became efficient in the operations, and later to accumulate profits, the companies laid off millions of employees. Hence, Marxist IR theory can be largely related to the contemporary international politics and relations. Although no single thought can explain the complexities of global international relations, Marxist concept of International relations has significantly contributed in elaborating the insights of international relations. Marxism and the underlying concepts and thoughts have influenced many other modern sociologists (Kegley, 1995). The ideologies of Marxism have explained the present disparities and societal occurrences and economic divisions. Moreover, the Marxist philosophy has been considered as the base for the formation of Soviet Union with a view to achieve economic and social equality and justice. Gramscian IR theory Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci has made significant contributions in the field of International Relations. Gramscis conceptual framework provided the theorists different innovative concepts which illuminated the hegemony mechanisms in international relations. Gramscian ideologies and thoughts have inspired many theorists are hence, are referred as Gramscian school of thought in IR (Germain Kenny, 1998). Gramscian described state as a major actor of the then international system is considered as ruling class of the defined civil society. The state is also described as the system which involves the entire society and unifies all the classes and also the contradictions between the social classes. Gramsci describes Hegemony as the dominance of the social class in rule (Cox, 1981). The dominance is described with respect to the control exercised by the ruling class over the interests, and the ways in which other groups conduct their tasks. Gramscian IR theory suggests that the state wil l gain dominance through consent from the other groups, and the state will get into crisis, if the ruling class will lose its consensus. In realist theories, Hegemony is described as the dominance of a single actor through coercive power, however, in Gramscism hegemony is described as the combination of both coercion and also consent by the specific ruling class (Bieler Morton, 2004). Inspired by the thoughts of Gramscism, Robert Cox developed neo-Gramscism school of thought, and applied the thoughts and ideologies of Gramscism in the global world. Coxs work largely focuses on the effects of global capitalism on global inequalities and explains that hegemony at global level first starts on the national scale and is established nationally by the social class, and later expands to the global scale. Neo-Gramscism then illustrates US supremacy as an example of outward expansion of American social class (Femia, 2005). Hence, from Gramscism it is evident that for an actor to exert force efficiently and effectively, there must be consent and persuasion, and the persuasion will occur only if the actor has sufficient power. Also, persuasion can help the actor to achieve consent, and the actor can therefore use the power of persuasion to gain consent from the other parts of the society who do not give consent. Gramsci gives the example of Russia in explaining the balance be tween force (power) and consent. He explains that in Russia there was presence of government power but they did not have the consent from the civil society, and hence, Bolshevik revolutionaries could succeed and establish a new civil society (Burchill et al., 2013). Similarly, other than power and coercion and consent, Gramscian IR theory also describes the importance of material conditions as an important condition for achieving hegemony. When all the conditions for achieving hegemony like, power, coercion, consensus, and material wealth are achieved, the state would act as the educator, and it would thereby present itself as cultural, moral and intellectual hegemonic (Germain Kenny, 1998). Thus, Neo-Gramscism extends the theory to include that a country that has powerful culture, consensus, and ideology would be capable of becoming a hegemonic power that will enjoy power for a longer time. Hence, Gramscism explains the American supremacy, by stating that universality of a specific nations powerful culture, and ability in establishing set of rules and specific institutions for governing international activity are referred to as important sources of power (Dirzauskaite Ilinca, 2017). Thus, Gramcism explains the American Supremacy established b y the international institutions like UN and WTO. Thus, it can be said that the nations or state experiencing hegemony would therefore create institutions to legitimize their power on the other groups. Gramscian IR theory, therefore explains the functioning of the international institutions like International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), United Nations (UN), which establish specific international rules that are largely consistent with the democratic principles and structures of powerful American Capitalist Hegemony. Similarly, these international institutions also establish hegemony over the member states by giving loans to the developing companies who give consent to their policies and accept their set rules (Booth Erskine, 2016). Thus, the Gramscian IR theory largely explains international relations based on the principles of hegemony. Gramscis, Marxism and Global Capitalism Gramscis work relates to the concepts of Marxism, which forms the basis for developing and analyzing the concept of hegemony. Marxism conception on IR had predicted about communist and socialist revolution that would first occur in the advanced capitalist societies. Marx already focused on the concepts of power which lies within the proletariat class and its connection with the civil societies. Based on Marxism, Gramsci analyzed that the Russian revolution would survive because the then Russian government had no connection with the civil societies, and the revolutions in western societies failed because the powerful state or class in the western societies were well connected with the civil society (Budd, 2007). Thus, Gramsciam expanded Marxism to include the importance of power, coercion and consent, in explaining hegemony. Gramcism ideologies which explain hegemony of nations based on power, coercion, cultural leadership, consent, material capabilities and also by legitimizing their power by establishing international institutions (Cox, 1194). Hence, cooperation among the elites and the international economic and political institutions helps in maintaining hegemony. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider that global governance achieved through political conditionality and pressures from international institutions and international powers explain global capitalism. Liberal IR Theory Liberal International Relations theory is based on certain liberal principals and assumptions. The roots of the liberal IR can be found in the Immanuel Kants ideologies on Perpetual Peace, where Kant describes three important conditions for perpetual peace, and these three conditions have become the basis of liberal IR theory (Doyle Recchia, 2011). The three main conditions explain neoliberal institutionalism expresses the significance of the international institutions in maintaining peace (Cristol, 2017). Commercial liberalism, explains the significance of international trade in maintaining peace, the democratic side of the liberal IR theory that for maintaining peace, all states should fulfill a major condition of being democracies and that democracies would get into war only rarely (Moravcsik, n.d.). Hence, Liberal IR theory, unlike the Marxist IR theory and Gramscism IR theory does not give importance solely to states but to individuals and institutions. Liberals anticipated that the then formed international institutions would play a major role in reducing uncertainty and thereby improve relationship among states by increasing mutual trust. Thus, a security dilemma would be attenuated which would promote international cooperation among states and further strengthen possibilities of world peace (Buchan, 2002). Thus, Liberal IR theory focuses on International regimes, which include mutually agreed rules, and procedures which will help the states to coordinate their policies and together collaborate in the free trade, control of arms and also environmental protection (Moravcsik, 2001). Thus, the international institutes would encourage collaboration and information sharing and reduce competition among states over gains and thereby increase international cooperation. Liberal IR theory places great importance on sovereignty and institutions duty to maintain nonintervention, and thereby supports stable international relations to ensure th at every political state is free to determine its way of life. Hence, it can be said that liberals agree that states becoming democracies is not the final cure, but there must be consolidation of the liberal democracy among states so as to reduce the chances of civil and world war. However, liberal IR theory also suggest that the grounds that establish peace may also establish grounds for conflict, and that the democracies might enter into conflicts, and thereby explains the relationship between America on one side, and resurgent Russia, China and Iran on the other (Moravcsik, 2003). Thus, although Liberal IR theory supports peace, it is just a recipe which provides guidelines for promoting peace and requires constant vigilance to avoid any crusades. Marxist, Gramscism, Liberal IR Theories: Importance of Differences The differences in the Marxist, Gramcism and Liberal IR Theories are important as they enable the readers to understand the modern day International Relations in the light of the traditional theories. The differences have formed the basis for the evolution of new theories that have largely contributed in the field of International Relations (Baylis et al., 2017). The Gramscism IR theory takes ides from the Marxist IR theory and also the differences among the ideologies and the actual situations in the international relations have led the modern thinkers to critique the traditional and real IR theories and postulate new theoretical concepts. Marxist theory talks about the dismissal of the powerful state and formation of communist societies based on the revolution by the oppressed class (Burchill et al., 2013). However, Marx did not emphasize the role of nationalism and civil societies in transformation which was captured by Gramscism theory that explains the importance of power and co nsent in the formation of a powerful state, which will exercise power and control over other groups via formation of institutes. The Liberal IR theory critiques the Gramcism IR theory and claims that Modern international institutions should not exercise power of a single state but should work towards promoting peace and institutionalize liberal policies. Hence, it can be said that the differences in the IR theories are important in evolution of new theories and explaining the present day international Relations. Conclusion The roots of the present day international relations can be traced back to the 19th century and where the postulation of the modern day IR was started. The Marxist, Gramscism and Liberal IR theories have played a major role in establishing the IR school of thoughts and have formed the basis for the evolution of new thoughts, ideologies and theories. The Marxist and Gramscim thoughts have explained that global governance achieved through political conditionality and pressures from international institutions and international powers explain global capitalism. The differences between the theories have led to the evolution of new theories which better explain the modern day international Relations. Bibliography Baylis, J., Smith, S. Owens, P., 2017. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. 7th ed. Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press. Bieler, A. Morton, A., 2004. A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations. Capital Class, 28(1), pp.85-113. Booth, K. Erskine, T., 2016. International Relations Theory Today. Second Edition ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Buchan, B., 2002. Explaining War and Peace: Kant and Liberal IR Theory. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(4), pp.407-28. Budd, A., 2007. Gramscis Marxism and international relations. International Socialism, 10 April. Buecker, R., 2003. Karl Marx's Conception of International Relations. Glendon Journal of Intrenational Studies, 3, pp.49-59. Burchill, S. et al., 2013. Theories of International Relations. Fifth Edition ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Cox, R., 1194. Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cox, R., 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), pp.126-55. Cristol, J., 2017. Liberalism. Oxford Bibliographies. Dirzauskaite, G. Ilinca, N., 2017. Understanding "Hegemony" in International Relation Theories. Aalborg University. Doyle, M. Recchia, S., 2011. Liberalism in International Relations. International Encyclopedia of Political Science, pp.1434-39. Femia, J., 2005. Gramsci, Machiavelli and International Relations. The Political Quaterly, 76(3), pp.341-49. Germain, R. Kenny, M., 1998. Engaging Gramsci: international relations theory and the new Gramscians. Review of International Studies, 24(1), pp.3-21. Kegley, C., 1995. Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and Neoliberal Challenge. New York: St. Martin's Press. Moravcsik, A., 2001. Liberal International Relations Theory: A Social Scientific Assessment. Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. , pp.1-53. Moravcsik, A., 2003. Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics. International Organization, 51(4), pp.513-53. Moravcsik, A., n.d. Liberalism and International Relations Theory. Harvard University, pp.92-96. Schram, S., 1988. Power and Marxist Theory: A Realist View. American Political Science Review, 82(3), pp.975-76. walt, S., 1998. International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, 110, pp.29-32.