Andrew Linklater’s article presents a critical analysis of the two influential works in the area of international relations, the central theme of which revolves around the ongoing debate about whether realism and Marxism offer wholesale explanations and predictions of world politics. Linklater begins by outlining the resurgence of many critiques against historical materialism in sociological interpretations of Marxism (Linklater, 1986). This critique fundamentally revolves around the supposed inability of historical materialism to cover the impact of the war and diplomacy on social structures and also historical change. On the other hand, the essay under review sees a coupled reassessment and partly de-stigmatization of Marxism in the theory of international relations. Linklater urges for a constructive dialog between the realist and Marxist theories by which a synthesis of their strengths would give an insightful and also thorough conceptualization of world politics.
The historical development of the classical liberal political economy and the consequent transformation of the discipline of international relations are reviewed. Liberal perspectives contradicted realism by focusing on how modernization affected the structure of global politics. Such a change of paradigm led to a much more systematic treatment of Marxist analysis of hegemony and dependency in the context of the global economy. Linklater suggests that recent sociological and international relations scholarship dismisses the idea of finding a holistic representation of world politics through realism or Marxism, respectively. In place of it, one sees enhanced support for a new approach that combines the strengths of both paradigms, overcoming their respective limitations. Linked with the class lecture, Linklater brings forward the limitations of historical materialism, albeit recognizing its significance and suggesting a blend with realism in international relations. This thus conforms to the classroom lesson underscoring the economic relations as the basis of human history, pointing to a requirement of nuanced views to come up with a complete description of the historical evolution.
Linklater draws attention to two key works – Giddens’ “The Nation-state and Also Violence” and Kubalkova and Cruickshank’s “Marxism and International Relations” – as part of this trend. Here, the role of the world of nations in history is highly stressed (Linklater, 1986). Theoretically, Giddens is undoubtedly remembered for his critique of the historical unfairness of Marxism, in that the matters of diplomacy and strategy are forgotten when dealing with the state in modern times. The article posits that sociology and international relations theory have followed completely different directions for a long time. Social and political theory is now reaching a critical crossroads, and the relation of classical sociology to international relations theory needs to be looked at again. Marxist-realist dialogue is presented as a significant shift that bears all the marks of the advent of a new era in social and also political theory.
Linklater’s work overlaps with the class notes on historical materialism and the critique of capitalism. The core narrative of class notes lies in the role that economic relations played in human history, which resonates with Linklater’s idea of Marxism. The discussion of the critique of capitalism in the class notes that emphasize alienation, exploitation, and also the eventuality of capitalism’s failure coincides with Linklater’s opinions on the constraints of historical materialism. Both highlight the centrality of the economic structures and class dynamics in determining historical processes, providing a unified account of the significance of the economic relations and of the Marxist critical analysis of capitalism in explaining human history.
In light of the class discussion of Hegel’s dialectics in realism with the Marxist and international theory – the three concepts used by Linklater – come from Hegel. They both focus on the phases in history which marked the stability and revolution. The idea of revolutions as class relations shift toward the new structures of production coheres with Linklater’s demand for a dialog between realism and Marxism. The proletariat class would soon become the dominant social order in the search for equality, but all this mirrors the principle of putting diverse perspectives together for the completeness of the historical development, relating notes to Linklater’s work.
Reference
Linklater, A. (1986). Realism, Marxism, and Critical International Theory. Review of International Studies, 12(4), 301–312. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20097092
write