Comparing Idealism, Realism, and Marxism in International Relations

Categories: Theory

<

In examining the landscape of international relations, it is imperative to critically assess the similarities and differences between conservative theories, such as idealism and realism, and the transformative theory propounded by Marxists. This discourse aims to explore five key assumptions, shedding light on how these theories diverge and converge.

Introduction

Understanding international relations requires a nuanced examination of conservative theories, including idealism and realism, juxtaposed with the transformative theory advanced by Marxists. This discussion will delve into five main assumptions, elucidating the contrasts between the Marxist transformative theory and the theories of idealism and realism.

Assumption 1: Structural Considerations

Firstly, akin to realism, Marxist transformative theory posits that comprehending the international system's structure is paramount. While realism accentuates the anarchic nature of global politics, Marxist transformative theory emphasizes the pivotal role of economic structures and the distinct positions occupied by states, societies, and classes. A historical illustration is the Russian workers' revolution in the 1920s, a manifestation of Marxist theory predicting the proletariat's ascendancy due to economic structures established by the Monarchy.

Get quality help now
Prof. Finch
Prof. Finch
checked Verified writer

Proficient in: Theory

star star star star 4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

avatar avatar avatar
+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

Assumption 2: Power Dynamics

Secondly, Marxists underscore the importance of power. Realists deem the distribution of power as the primary explanatory variable in international relations, focusing on state and military power. In this regard, Marxist transformatists align more closely with realists than idealists, as they too emphasize power differentials, particularly structural economic power rather than military might.

Assumption 3: Morality in International Relations

Thirdly, Marxists share a skeptical stance towards the role of morality in international relations, akin to realism. Marxists posit that morality often serves as an ideological smokescreen, obscuring the genuine and determining economic interests guiding actors.

Get to Know The Price Estimate For Your Paper
Topic
Number of pages
Email Invalid email

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy. We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

"You must agree to out terms of services and privacy policy"
Write my paper

You won’t be charged yet!

In contrast, idealists advocate for a significant role for morality in international affairs, exemplified by America's Marshall Plan, which aimed not only at altruism but also at curbing the spread of communism and preserving capitalist states.

Assumption 4: Actors in International Relations

Fourthly, both idealists and Marxists diverge from realism's preoccupation with the state. Idealists argue for a pluralist perspective, contending that various actors influence international relations. On the other hand, Marxists, while not embracing pluralism, recognize only a select few actors as pivotal economic players, challenging realism's overemphasis on the state's role.

Assumption 5: Continuity and Transformation

Lastly, concerning the continuity of international relations, Marxists find themselves between realists and idealists. Like realists, they acknowledge a lack of inherent continuity, emphasizing historical disparities in the control of means of production. However, Marxists depart from realists by asserting the potential for fundamental transformation. In aligning with idealists, Marxists also envision a better world, but their perspective differs in that they view improvement as a deliberate, non-natural process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the comparative analysis of conservative theories, including idealism and realism, alongside the transformative theory of Marxists, reveals both similarities and disparities. The examination of structural considerations, power dynamics, the role of morality, actors in international relations, and the question of continuity or transformation provides a comprehensive understanding of these theories. While each theory contributes distinct insights, the nuances in their assumptions underscore the complexity of international relations and the varied lenses through which scholars perceive and interpret global dynamics.

Updated: Jan 10, 2024
Cite this page

Comparing Idealism, Realism, and Marxism in International Relations. (2016, Sep 28). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/philosophical-theories-of-idealism-realism-and-marxism-essay

Comparing Idealism, Realism, and Marxism in International Relations essay
Live chat  with support 24/7

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

get help with your assignment