Neo-realist thinking is based on the principle that states are independent actors, each of which pursues their own self interest. Neo-realists such as Joseph Grieco concentrated on the concepts of relative and absolute gains to further illustrate this principle. The theory of relative gains dictates that countries only act to increase their own power and therefore would only agree to cooperate with other states if they believe that doing so would increase their own absolute power. However as is stated in ‘The Globalisation of World Politics:’ “the likelihood of states abandoning international cooperative efforts is increased if participants see other states gaining more from the arrangement.” Thus it can be inferred that neo-realist thinking dictates that international cooperation is impossible if one nation perceives that its ‘relative power’ is declining because of the partner nation gaining more from an arrangement. Further examples from neo-realist thinking of nations being unable to work in mutual interests are expressed by Security Studies scholars who promote ‘Offensive Realism.’ Offensive realists suggest that nations should work solely to weaken rival states and increase their own relative power to them. Therefore in neo-realism, it is presumed to be counter-productive to engage in agreements with other nations that might increase other nations’ power.
Similar arguments against nations pursuing a harmony of interests can be found in Marxist schools of thought. For instance, ‘World System Theory,’ promoted by scholars such as Immanuel Wallerstein, talks of the capitalist system creating a two-tier structure to the world economy, with a ‘periphery’ in poor nations being exploited by a dominant ‘core’ in wealthier nations. According to world-system theorists, the current capitalist system works in a way that transfers money from the periphery to the core, meaning that poor nations become poorer, whilst the rich become richer. This unequal relationship ensures that there is no harmony of interests between nations and backs up neo-realist notion that nations only work to pursue their own interests and increase their relative power.
These similarities listed above are significant in that they show a degree of convergence between the two schools of thought. However this significance is limited in that it only shows two areas of common overlap amongst two vast ideologies.
A primary difference between Neo-realism and Marxism is their different views on the structure of the world system.
Neo-realism distinguishes itself from conventional Realism in that it believes that the structure of the international system is the key factor that determines the behaviour of states. Neo-realists believe that ‘anarchy’ is the ordering principle of the world structure, as well as the ‘distribution of capabilities’ (the number of major world powers). They believe that all policy decisions made by state actors are a result of the anarchic international system, whereby each nation acts to preserve their own survival. ‘The Globalisation of World Politics’ uses the example of China and Belgium to demonstrate the ways different nations act against the constraints of anarchy; “Belgium, with limited resources, responds to anarchy… by joining alliances and taking an activist role in regional and international organisations…China, a major power a large country, would most likely pursue a unilateral strategy of increasing military strength to protect and secure its interests.”
In contrast, Marxist ideology portrays a markedly different view on the structure of the international system. Marxist thinking portrays the root of society as being centred on the economic structure of the area, particularly the tension between the means and relations of production. Economic developments are said to trigger wider changes in society. ‘New Marxist,’ Justin Rosenburg, summarised this notion, stating “it is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers…which reveals the innermost secret.” Thus it can be inferred that one of the central assumptions of Marxist thought is that (rather than anarchy) the nature of relations between the means of production and the relations of production are what characterises the society of a nation, and thereon dictates how that nation will behave towards other nations. This difference is significant because it highlights a fundamental disparity in the founding principles of each school of thought.
Further differences between Marxism and Neo-realism stem from this theory. As is stated in Microsoft Encarta; “Neo-realists believe that events unfold according to general laws or principles.” Since neo-realists presume that the self interested motives of human nature and states are permanent features of the international system, neo-realists believe their philosophy can offer an unchanging understanding of international relations, which could explain the intra-state conflicts in Ancient Greece, to modern day conflicts between state actors.
In contrast, as is discussed above, New Marxists such as Rosenburg believe that the nature of international relations depends on the economic structure of the society, in particular the relations between the means and relations of production. Since the economic structure of each society is constantly developing, Marxists believe that the nature of international relations changes with it. Whereas Marxists believe that the nature of international relations changes in accordance to changing economic structures in the world, neo-realists differ in respect that they claim that there are patterns to international relations that remain the same. Again this difference is highly significant in that shows that Marxists believe that to understand the way international relations operate in a given time, it is necessary to first understand the economic structure of the society, whereas Neo-realists believe that international-relations can be understood by simply looking at examples in history.
Further differences have been highlighted by Marxist scholars such as Robert Cox, who argued against neo-realist claims to describe the world ‘as it is’. Cox argued that the proponents of neo-realism were spokespeople for the ruling elites who prevailed under the current hegemon and whom were looking to preserve the status-quo by making change appear impossible.
Another key difference between the two ideologies relates to the nature of the state as the primary actor. Whereas neo-realists believe strongly in the state as the primary actor in IR, certain strands of Marxist teaching believe in breaking down the rigid notion of sovereignty.
Critical theorists, such as Andrew Linklater believe in a loose form of the word ‘emancipation,’ whereby citizens of the world no longer look to state boundaries as being significant in the context of their obligations. Such theorists look to enter an era of trans-nationalism, where people work alongside citizens of other nations, with lesser regard for state boundaries.
Similar theories of the lessening of significance of the state actor emerge in the school of Critical Security Studies, which replaces the ‘state’ as the primary object of analysis for security problems, with individual human beings.
In summary it can be concluded that the differences between Neo-realism and Marxism are more significant and fundamental than the similarities. Marxism differs from neo-realism mainly in the way that Marxists believe the nature of international relations are not permanent and vary depending on economic circumstances, whereas neo-realists believe that the patterns of international relations always remain the same.
Bibliography:
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., (2008) The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford University Press)
Microsoft Corporation, (1997-2008). "International Relations," http://encarta.msn.com © (1997-2008). (http://encarta.msn.com ) Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia
Sorry i haven’t been able to call in a while, busy work, birthdays, how u been? Just stayed at halls, so quiet, got a lot of work done today, i really liked that place we went to the other day, pizza was amazing, wt u gna do next week, we should link up some time next week, any good movies? What kind of films do you like? What you gonna do next week? Going out?
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford, 2008) Page 151
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford, 2008) Page 129
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford, 2008) Page 129
Baylis J., Smith S., Owens P., The Globalization of World Politics 4e (Oxford, 2008) Page 155
"International Relations," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia (2008) http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
