The “realpolitik” of power and self-interest from a realist perspective would mean that the absence of a global form of governance would position mankind and contemporary transitions in a state of anarchy. The centrality of this paper is to mainly point out rather, certain disparities that have plagued the global economic system. The perspectives are varied, but the concerns raised by liberalized geopolitical relations (that is to make reference to structural realist conceptions that hold the view that such anarchies are necessary for “power struggle”) as against early Marxist and Neo-Marxist critical perspectives are of immense value for this paper. The condition of today’s global economy is perhaps directly or indirectly structured in negligence of the plights of the most deprived regions of the world. Taking a cue from Cox to enhance such conceptions, we first of all deal with hierarchies of social forces, states, and global governance to understand hegemony and ‘identify counter-hegemonic movement’.
Abstract.
From a realist perspective, the "realpolitik" of power and self-interest would mean that the absence of a global form of governance would position humanity and contemporary transitions in a state of anarchy. The centrality of this paper is to mainly point out specific disparities that have plagued the global economic system. The perspectives are varied, but the concerns raised by liberalized geopolitical relations, that is, about structural realist concepts that hold the view that such anarchies are necessary for "power struggle" as against early Marxist and Neo-Marxist critical perspectives are of immense value for this study. The condition of today's global economy is perhaps directly or indirectly structured in negligence of the plights of the world's most deprived regions. Using Cox's cue to enhance such conceptions, we primarily deal with hierarchies of social forces, that is, states and global governance structures to understand hegemony and 'identify counter-hegemonic movement’ that promotes realizable visions for a better form of world order”.
KEY WORDs: Capitalist, socialist, liberalism, third- world, global order, exploitation, dependency, affluent, deprived, economic growth, industrialisation, hegemony, counter-hegemony.
The Third-World Disorder , Neo- l iberalism and The Marxi st’s Conception.
Hans Morgenthau maintains, "International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power" (Morgenthau. 1948). Power from a political perspective does not limit boundaries to the nation-state interest but also groups of people or organisations wielding the power of influence on states. Relatedly, the concept of "political realism is a traditional political analysis that stresses the imperatives states face to pursue a power politics of the national interest" (Burchill. 2013, p29). Such relation can also be extended to "dominant actors" or political rulers, who are often on the quest to maximise their power. "Realism is a limited yet powerful and important approach to and set of insights about international relations" (Burchill. 2013, p29).
Are such assertions by early works of Morgenthau and similarly E.H. Carrs’and the likes of any relevance in contemporary times? Does the current nature of global politics or the global economy order give any credence to these ideals or conceptualisations as argued by the realist approach to our understanding of international relations?
According to Cox, these are political questions,“one that begins with the issue of whose interests are protected and whose are disadvantaged or ignored by the dominant political and economic structures”. As such, matters of this nature do not require an empirical inquiry because they are“ethical matters which have been dominant debate in the study field over the last twenty or so years” (Burchill. 2005, p14).
Putting into perspective the concepts of liberalism and how it has transformed the global economy through capitalist structures and how the given conditions continue to sustain the status quo of“global departmentalisations”, that is to say, the global North and the global South or the centre-periphery divides. It is substantive enough to acknowledge the profound impact and influences of liberalism over the past decades. The increase in human liberties, the outburst of industries, the rise in market competition, and the progressive innovations and transformations in human society are but a few of the impacts liberalisation presents. It is perhaps not misplaced to assert that capitalism is borne out of liberalism, and as such, liberalisation today is the global order. Associated perspectives of liberal thoughts are deeply rooted in liberal democracies, trade and economic liberalisations. These thoughts have ensured the proliferation of both liberal and neo-liberal doctrines.
First of all, to proceed with the analogies that democracy is an ideology of European enlightenment that has spread through the regions of the world mainly through the remnants and laid down structures of colonisation; these have seen significant“transitions to democracy in Africa, East Asia and Latin” (Burchill. 2013, p56). Democratic political systems have become normative for recognising nation-state sovereignty under a“perceived” ideal or a universal legal framework.
As a social contract, the limitations or the exercise of democracy in retrospect have been the decreasing power of people since it entrusts the rights of citizens to the state, and the states acting on their behalf "sovereignty". As a reflection on traditional political theories, Giorgio Agamben perceives "sovereignty as power over life" (Agamben. 1998). That is to say, surrendering the rights of people to centralised power, in other words, state control. On this account, one's rights are defined by varying establishments of state authorities.
It is this evidence of liberal democracy and its perceived goodwill that Fukuyama (1992) viewed as an ideology that had no competitor or ideal alternative in recent times and the years to come. Fukuyama might have overemphasised this conception, that is, in reference to democracy as "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the 'final form of human government' (Fukuyama. 1992; Burchill. 2005, p56). Ignoring the fact of the lapses this "mode" of governance presents, a unique example reveals a paradoxical conception of power, thus, where ironically democracy rather entrust power at the disposal of a few individuals or groups, instead of established institutions.
Secondly, trade and economic liberalisation are everything about globalisation today; this is undoubtedly not a reductionist assertion but a fundamental basis for the subject at hand. Economic liberalism entails economic systems that encourage private or individual ownership of the means of production. In a much broader sense, it makes provisions for open markets and tends to limit the power and involvement of the state. In one of its goodwill, democracy ensures or positions the state as a guarantor to freer market competitions by providing institutional structure and the control mechanisms needed for an effective economy.
The sociologist Seymour Martin in his work "Some Social Requisite of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy" (1959); gave an account of the fact that there is significantly a high degree of empirical correlation between stable democracy, on the one hand, and a country's level of economic development on the other", all in correlation with its related economic indices (Seymour. 1959; Fukuyama. 1992); This is to present a fair account of the connection and correlations that exist between the political and economic liberalisation, and at the lengthy end how these two dynamics affect the concept of national development. These two dynamics are not coincidental. The evidence is reflected in cited examples of nations that have charted this path of governance—for example, the Spanish economic liberalisation of 1958 and also the likes of Portugal and Greece.
It can be noted that the liberalisation of these respective economies triggered economic growth and industrial transformations in those countries. Similarly, comparatives can be made elsewhere, like Asia and in countries like Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, where their modernisations have been influenced by the introductions of economic and democratic liberalisation (Fukuyama. 1992, p110). Here, the relationship between the choice of governance and its economic development becomes apparent, though other factors may as well count.
As an overview of these dominant conceptions, liberalism has shaped the global economy; and it has not ceased to reproduce the debate it has generated since its inception in both the political and academic discourses. The growth of liberalism transcends the socio-economic, political and national borders. Significantly, and notably even in states that have long held communist or authoritarian political beliefs, most of these states“eventually came also to adopt market principles and integrated themselves fully into the global, capitalist economic system” (Fukuyama. 1992, p41). Since the 1980s, a new form of liberal thought emerged, either to strengthen or, in other ways, to introduce new perspectives; in this regard, neo-liberal economic ideologies have had“enormous influence notably through the‘Washington Consensus’in promoting the deregulation of world markets” (Burchill. 2005, p114).
Economic liberalisations and capitalist markets are complementary in such a way that the former influences the structure necessary for the latter's effectiveness. Neo-liberalism is often the term of reference by critics of this ideal; in contrast, those who support this ideology will most likely use the phrase free-market economies. The onset of liberalised economies has never fallen short of criticism; as a result, "Liberal theories of interdependence and the later 'neo-liberal institutionalist' analysis of international regimes argued that the economic and technological unification of the human race required new forms of international cooperation" (Burchill. 2005, p10).
Varying levels of criticism have been raised against neo-liberalism and capitalism concerning the inequalities it has produced and the division of classes within the social and economic structures. According to Karl Marx, capitalism creates a single unique relation of production, borne out of the forces of production. That is to say, people are born into societies pre-arranged by existing property relations; this in effect, creates a division of social classes. Owners of the means of production make up the class of the elites in the society, or the ''bourgeoisie'' as those who fall outside this category are those of the working class or the proletariat.
The core of Marx’s critique of the capitalist system is found in his theory of exploitation of the working class as they are used to producing more and paid fewer wages in the value of equivalence (Moseley. 2001). Division of labour in the capitalist structures also has its defects as some labour are considered highly skilled than others, where in most cases, the elite wield power and dominance over minority classes. For this elite dominance to subside, Marx suggests counter movement by the minority grouping to revolt against the status quo.
Additionally, Marxists and Leninists maintain the view that socialism is the only economic system that will eliminate the varied dynamics or the excesses of capitalism. Marx and Engels also assert that“capitalism paved the way for the increase of human loyalty from the nation to the species” (Burchill. 2005). By so saying, it turns to present how society is turning to private property and business ownerships than that of a‘’socialist ideal’’, where most people have become dependent on capitalist structures, hence the exploitation of the masses.
In contemporary times the effects of capitalism are notable, but what has generated much of its critiques are the relative defects of“capitalism on less developed countries that had not yet reached the level of industrialization” (Fukuyama. 2005, p 98). For example, after colonisation, it was assumed that the“non- European world would become more similar to the West in most ways” (Burchill. 2005, p124). Still, the contrast has been evident over the past decades. New perspectives on the“third world” emerged in the 1950s to counter the effects of the capitalist market structures that hindered the development of third-world countries.
In his dependency theory, the Latin American scholar Raul Prebisch accounted for how industrialised or developed countries affect less developed countries. With regards to especially the trading relationship that exists between these divides, Prebisch, for example, explained that raw materials are sourced from developing countries to fuel industrial production in developed countries. The finished products are then exported for trading with these developing countries. The derelictions are that developing countries' economies depend on export revenues from their natural resources. These exchanges do not encourage the growth or establishment of local industries, which will lead to job creation, industrialisation, or value-added products that could, in other ways, earn these countries higher export revenues.
Global institutional structures are, on the other hand, structured to the disadvantage of developing countries, that is, the‘global institutional order’(Collste.2010, p11; Appiah. 2017). As a result, the effects remain detrimental to resource-rich but less developed countries, and these countries have very little or no influence on price setting; in other words, the market indicators which Jan Aart Scholte describes as‘neoliberalist formulas’(Scholte. 2005, p330; Appiah. 2017). These engagements do not only aggravate the deficiencies that already exist in the roles played by leaders in developing countries, with little options at their disposal than to observe the status quo; This has been especially so due to the strong influences of the dominant actor-ship of global institutions like the World Trade Organisation (W.T.O), International Monetary Fund (I.M.F), and World Health Organisation, among others.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Moses Appiah (Author), 2018, The Third-World Disorder, Neo-liberalism and The Marxist Concept, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1269864
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.