Skip to content

Contribution of Neo-Marxism to Historiography

    Neo-Marxism is the third most popular paradigm after realism and liberalism. The model is based on a capitalist and anti-bourgeois approach to analysis of realism and liberalism (IR) as a characteristic of Marxism and is therefore excluded from the mainstream political discourse in capitalist states.

    A true cognitive dissonance divides liberal capitalist theory, whether national for realists or international for liberals, and Marxist when evaluating the fundamental philosophical outlook of modern times and its core political, economic and social processes. Thus Neo-Marxist (IR) can theoretically be used in an ideologically neutral context and IR can be used by the liberal ruling class. with respect to the structure of the .

    Neo Marxism comes under the broader framework of the New Left. Neo-Marxism in a social sense links the broader time to Marxist philosophy, the status and power of Max Weber’s social contempt. Examples of neo-Marxism include critical theory analytic Marxism and frank structural Marxism. Neo-Marxism developed as a result of social and political problems that traditional Marxist theory was unable to adequately address. This repetition of ideas turned to peaceful ideological diffusion of the revolutionary and often violent methods of the past.

    Economically, neo-Marxist ideas moved on from an era of public outcry over class warfare and attempted to create workable models for resolving it. The many different branches of Neo-Marxist are often not in agreement with each other and their doctrine. After World War I some neo-Marxists dissent and later formed the Frankfurt School. Neo-Marxism and other Marxist theories became unaffordable in democratic and capitalist Western cultures towards the end of the 20th century, and the term acquired negative connotations during redecoration. For that reason social theorists of the same ideology from that time tried to separate themselves from the term Neo-Marxism.

    Examples of such thinkers include Devic Harvey and Jack Fresco with some ambiguity surrounding Noram Goswami who has been leveled neo-Marxist by some.

    See also  Prime Minister of Britain: Position, Power and Function

    But personally disagree with such assessment. Some consider the Libertarian Socialists to be an example of reconstructed neo-Marxism.

    The neo-Marxist approach to development economics is closely related to dependency and world systems theory. In these cases the exploitation that classifies him as Marxist, the usual “internal” measures of exploitation of classical Marxism are external. The neo-Marxist approach to industrial economics emphasizes the monopoly rather than the competitive nature of capitalism. This approach is associated with Kalecki and Baran and Swewe. ,

    According to Wallerstein the capitalist system was originally established as a global phenomenon and thus globalism has existed for nearly 500 years; the division of European countries into nation-states was a transitional phase in this model. The bourgeoisie at all levels is formed by forming an integrating and pre-forms of international capital moving beyond national boundaries. The pain free trade principle of capitalism and the research of new markets has turned it into reality. Thus capitalism was international in origin and essentially. A fact that explains why globalization and the weakening of state boundaries is not something unique, but constitutes a common spatial structure of the capitalist system on a global scale.

    The bourgeoisie is accordingly the “global class that today controls the spatial geographical location of the Rich North (the value of the Globe West and the world system). The center of the global capitalist is the West where capital, advanced technology and the global economy and global political power are the main economic forces.” The fact that nations, states and their respective administrations still exist that fundamentally do not affect the global system as the main decisions on international relations are not to be made by governments, states, but by The global capitalist elite is represented by various nations—classic Americans, European entrepreneurs, oil giants, new Russian oligarchs, and third world shipping wealth.

    This is the core of a new structure of governance. The other side of this global system is the sphere of the global periphery, the third world where the global proletariat is concentrated. The world’s poorest and most deprived population lives here. Globalization creates a legal model of the world order and draws out more and more parts of the global proletariat. It is during that migration that the Third World global proletariat is internationalized and begins to realize its historical role as a revolutionary class in the future.

    Another important element of the global structure in the neo-Marxist theory is that of all peripheral countries. Some of the great powers are included in this list. Although more likely than third world societies, they are still in a position to be subject to the ‘Richnerth realm’. Typical countries of this type are BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. In these countries, the world of technology and capital is heavily dependent on the western countries for economic and human resources.

    The followers of Neo Marxism, however, call themselves the New Anti-Globalists. They consider globalization to be an evil.

    Leave a Reply