Lecture
Reveal the place and role of the theory of international determinism and geopolitics.
Analyze the features of racial-anthropological theories. Characterize Marxism and
neo-Marxism. traditional political institutions as the highest level of formation of political
culture. Clarify the specifics of civilizational theories.
1. Theories of international determinism and geopolitics.
2. Racial-anthropological theories.
3. Marxism and neo-Marxism.
4. Civilizational theories.
Theories described as deterministic consist of concepts based on
assumptions about the determining role of certain factors in the formation of international relations.
This is undoubtedly akin to the factor theories of behaviorism, from which, however, they
differ significantly.
The factor theories of behaviorism emerged considerably later and are characterized by a higher
degree of complexity and abstraction. Deterministic theories are defined by a monofactorial
approach, that is, they are characterized by a fairly rigid linkage of phenomena and processes in international
relations predominantly to the manifestation of only one of the factors, while the action of others is considered
negligible. They are aimed at studying phenomena and processes broader than international relations, social
phenomena and processes, and can therefore be considered theories of the international environment.
Deterministic theories include sociological-geographical theories
of determinism and geopolitics, racism, Marxism and neo-Marxism. Such a grouping is purely
conventional in nature, since they represent completely different systems of views on social
phenomena and processes in general and international relations in particular.
The overwhelming majority of scholars do not classify them as components of the theory of international
relations (with the exception of neo-Marxism, and sometimes — geopolitics), although a number of positions
they contain can be regarded as peculiar attempts to explain it.
Theories of geographical determinism and geopolitics
Among the theories based on the principle of monofactoriality, the most
developed and significant scientific approach is geographical determinism, the development of which
in the 20th century gave rise to the formulation of a whole series of geopolitical concepts.
Geographical determinism originated in antiquity. Opinions linking the degree of
development of states and civilizations to the features of their geographical location, climate and
soils, are found in the works of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Epicurus, Hippocrates,
Thucydides. Fully formed geographically deterministic concepts of the development of society
were expressed by J. Bodin, C. Montesquieu, A.A. Turgot, H. Buckle, L.I. Mechnikov, E.G. Reclus and others.
In their works, the geographical environment was regarded as the most important factor in the
formation and development of the individual, societies, civilizations, states, etc.
H. Buckle, studying the history of humanity, drew attention to the interactions between
nature and man, which, in his opinion, are mutual. Analyzing the natural environment
of man, in his work "History of Civilization in England" (1861), he argued that the most important
elements of it are climate, landscape, soil and food, the quality and quantity of which directly affect
human development
The landscape, in his opinion, has a determining influence on the features of a person's physical
development, his thinking and, indirectly, on the level of development of the human community. The grandeur of
nature suppresses man, making him passive and helpless before the elements, while
people living in the temperate zone are forced to be active and fight for survival, which
makes them creative and contributes to the accumulation of intellectual "capital."
A very interesting theoretical concept in the field of social geography research
was put forward by the Russian sociologist L. Mechnikov. He set out his views on the development of society
in his fundamental work "Civilization and the Great Historical Rivers. A Geographical Theory
of the Development of Modern Society” (1889).
In the history of civilization, L.I. Mechnikov identified three main periods:
1. The river period is counted from the time when the first developed societies arose
in the valleys of major rivers: the Indus and the Ganges in India; the Yellow River and the Yangtze in China; the Tigris and Euphrates
in Mesopotamia; the Nile in Egypt. River valleys were convenient for agriculture and served
as the most convenient transport route that people could use. In these
limited geographical areas, people were forced to show solidarity, uniting
into communities. The gradual process of differentiation of social functions led to the emergence of
the first states.
2. The maritime period, spanning 25 centuries, begins with the founding of Carthage
and ends during the existence of the empire of Charlemagne. During this time the cultures
of Phoenicia, Carthage, Greece, Rome, and Byzantium arise. A common feature for them was the development not only
of agriculture, but also of crafts and the prevalence of maritime trade, which became
the main source of their prosperity and power. During this time, people mastered not only
the Mediterranean Sea, but also the Black and Baltic Seas, expanding the range of European
civilization and gradually making it more powerful than others.
3. The oceanic period begins after the collapse of the empire of Charlemagne, and its
culmination becomes
the rise of Western European civilization, which, thanks to the accelerated development of maritime
transport, mastered not only the Atlantic Ocean, but virtually the entire world's waters
space. L. Mechnikov views the oceanic period as the eve of the beginning of the "worldwide"
era, which was emerging in the 19th century.
Geographical determinism became the theoretical basis of geopolitics, which is based
on the idea of the determining influence of the features of geographical space on the foreign policy of
states. Geopolitics as a separate science began to form in the second half of the 19th century,
long before this name was proposed in 1916 in the work "The State as a Form of Life"
by the Swedish geographer and jurist R. Kjellén, who considered it to be the science "of the state as a
geographical organism embodied in space.”
Geopolitical ideas were in fact initiated in the works of L. Gumplowicz and F. Ratzel, who,
unlike the determinists who linked the influence of the features of the geographical environment
to the development of human society in general, linked it instead to the sphere of state politics.
L. Gumplowicz, considered one of the most authoritative representatives of
social Darwinism in sociology, set out his concept of social relations in the works:
"Race and State" (1875), "The Racial Struggle" (1883), "Sociology and Politics" (1892). He
proceeded from the idea that the laws of social development correspond to the natural laws of human
existence, that is, he put forward the idea of isomorphism much earlier than the founders
of the systems theory of behaviorism did. In his opinion, humanity is heterogeneous and consists of human
races differing in their origin and historical features of formation, which he
understands as sociocultural associations of people arising on the basis of the commonality of spiritual
elements, such as religion, language, customs, culture. In the course of living together in one
territory, under the influence of the process of amalgamation (from the French amalgame — fusion, mixture of heterogeneous
elements) small primitive human groups form ethnic groups, nations and states.
The main or primary law of relations between states is their constant struggle
over the drawing of the border line, both in the sense of moving it (i.e. expanding one's own territory),
and freedom of action across it.
From this law follow three derivative, or secondary, laws:
1) the basis for ensuring one's own security is the accumulation of power, as well as
the maximum possible undermining of it among likely opponents;
2) a state's actions are directed along the line of least resistance and aimed at achieving
the best results;
3) the basis of foreign policy is military force, which directly determines the status of the state
and its activity in the international environment.
The founder of classical geopolitics is considered to be the German scholar F.
Ratzel, who, however, did not use this term, but used the term "political
geography." In the works "Anthropogeography" (1882), "Political Geography" (1897), "On
the Laws of the Spatial Growth of States" (1901) he formulated a concept of the determining
influence of the geographical environment on the foreign policy of states.
Young states, full of social energy, are expansive and always try to
expand at the expense of weaker neighbors. F. Ratzel derived seven laws of the spatial
growth of states:
1. The space of states grows together with the development of their culture.
2. The spatial growth of a state is accompanied by the development of ideas, trade,
production, and an increase in social activity.
3. The expansion of a state's territory is achieved by annexing or absorbing
smaller countries.
4. The border is a peripheral organ of the state, indicating its strength or weakness and
changes in its internal organism
5. A state tries to incorporate into its territory the most valuable physical-geographical
elements: coastlines, river basins, plains, mineral basins.
6. The impulse to growth is external, since it is linked to differences in the level of
development of civilizations in neighboring territories
7. The general tendency toward territorial increase passes from state to state and
intensifies, leading to the emergence of ever larger states.
R. Kjellén, a Swedish geographer and jurist, used the ideas of F. Ratzel, which, in
the opinion of K. Haushofer, he gave clarity and comprehensibility. He regarded the state as an organism,
consisting of five vital spheres: geo-spatial, demographic, economic,
social and political.
R. Kjellén believed that the state is guided by an instinct for
self-preservation, growth, a striving for power, and wages a struggle for possession of living
space at all stages of its existence: birth, maturity, decline, death (here
it would be more apt to say liquidation. — Author's note).
A. Mahan, without using the term "geopolitics," widely applied its conceptual-categorical apparatus and formulated a theoretical concept that became classical for it.
On this basis, he put forward six criteria for the status of a state:
1. Geographical position relative to open sea basins, allowing
one to establish maritime communications with other countries, and, if necessary, to threaten them with its
fleet.
2. The configuration of the sea coast and the number of convenient sea ports, on which
the prosperity of the state and its security depend.
3. The length of the coastline, since the longer it is, the greater the potential
opportunities the state has.
4. The statistical population of the country.
5. National character, that is, the people's capacity for trade, which is important, since
it is the basis of the state's power.
6. The character of political rule, since this can either promote or constrain the free
initiative of citizens.
A positive combination, for an individual state, of objective (natural) and subjective
factors of maritime power does not yet indicate the overall level of its power. In the opinion of
A. Mahan, power is the result of a purposeful policy of its political leadership,
which, in a favorable geopolitical situation, must take advantage of existing opportunities.
The power of any state in the world consists of three principal elements, which in
A. Mahan's theoretical concept are presented in the form of a formula: SP = N + MM + NB, where
SP – sea power; N – navy; MM – merchant fleet; NB -
naval bases, which are a key element of power, since their location at
geographical points most important for world shipping allows
control of sea routes, and therefore the state gains enormous strategic advantages.
Justifying the mission of the United States to fulfill its leading role in world politics,
A. Mahan relied on their unique geopolitical position, which he called "Manifest Destiny"
which allows dominance in the two oceans most important for world
shipping, which are the basis for the dominance that must be achieved in two stages:
1) dominance in both Americas, in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine, which will allow the US
to control the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans;
2) the establishment of world dominance through penetration into other oceans (above all,
the Indian Ocean) and a strategic encirclement of Eurasia.
Such a policy, in A. Mahan's opinion, should be directed toward establishing
a planetary trading civilization led by the United States, whose main task would be
maintaining free trade among the countries of the world.
The outstanding English geopolitician H. Mackinder proceeded in his reasoning from the thesis
that in any social process "man takes the initiative, not nature, but
nature itself predominantly performs the regulation."
In his opinion, the entire geopolitical history of humanity is divided into three eras:
1. The pre-Columbian era, during which the peoples of the inner crescent were forced to
constantly defend themselves against the nomadic peoples of Asia, where there was always the possibility of creating
a large and mobile military force. Germans, Huns, Alans, Hungarians, Mongols, Arabs,
succeeding one another, carried out devastating invasions of the maritime civilizations of Europe.
2. The Columbian era became a turning point in the development of human civilization,
since the peoples of the inner crescent, continuing their struggle against the peoples of Asia (at the time
Europe was threatened by the Ottoman Turks), sent expeditions in search of new lands and, without
encountering serious resistance, created powerful colonial empires. This era became the
triumph of Western European civilization, which managed not only to withstand the pressure of the peoples
of the Pivotal Area, but also to subjugate them, establishing control over the territories of both
crescents.
3. The post-Columbian era began with the end of the era of great geographical
discoveries. The whole world became known and settled, and the development of a system of overland routes of
communication caused the effect of "closing in of the globe." The dynamic pulsations of the maritime
civilizations are leading them toward collision, while in parallel a powerful continental
power – Russia – is being reborn in the heart of Asia. H. Mackinder wrote: "Russia occupies in the world the same central
strategic position as Germany does in Europe. It can strike in all
directions and is exposed to possible attacks from all directions except the north.
On the basis of his scheme, H. Mackinder formulated three rules of world politics,
which, like his scheme, became classic:
1) who rules Eastern Europe — rules the Heartland;
2) who rules the Heartland – rules the World Island;
3) who rules the World Island – rules the World.
In the theory of international relations, the works of N. Spykman stand out, who
formulated his concepts by combining the theories of geopolitics and the balance of power.
In the work "America's Strategy in World Politics" (1942) and in the work published after his death
"The Geography of the Peace," he analyzed in detail the theoretical foundations of geopolitics and
formulated a utilitarian approach to the problems of world politics, trying to create
the foundations of an effective US strategy. N. Spykman suggested that expansion takes place in the
direction of least resistance, and that its limiting natural barriers are oceans, rivers,
and mountains, which are the determining factors of its direction. The purpose of expansion may be linked to
the struggle for access to the sea, control over strategic communication junctions,
mineral basins, etc. Following F. Ratzel, he claimed that the territory
of a state is a function of its power today. That is, at a given historical
moment a state controls an area of its own territory that its accumulated power allows.
N. Spykman viewed geopolitics as one of the most important instruments
of shaping international policy, as a way of developing an effective strategy. He believed:
"In a world of international anarchy, foreign policy must be guided by the goal of strengthening or,
at least, preserving the comparative power position of the state. Power, in the final analysis,
allows the successful conduct of war, and geography holds the keys to the problems of military and
political strategy. The territory of a state is the base from which it acts during war, and the strategic
position it occupies during the temporary truce called peace. Geography is
a fundamental factor in a state's foreign policy because this factor is
permanent. Ministers come and go, even dictators die, but mountain ranges
remain unshakable."
In the 1920s–1940s, popular was an interpretation of the idea of panregions,
a concept of the authors of economic regions of the world. K. Haushofer attached to them the significance
of geopolitical formations.
N. Spykman revised H. Mackinder's rules and formulated them in a different way,
leaving only two instead of three propositions. In his opinion, world domination is determined by
the following geographical features:
1) whoever dominates the Rimland dominates Eurasia;
2) whoever dominates Eurasia holds the fate of the world in their hands.
In his opinion, three main centers play a determining role in world politics:
the Atlantic coast of North America, Europe, and the Far East of Eurasia. He assumed
that in the future a fourth center – India – might join them.
Proceeding from an analysis of the main geopolitical concepts, T. Gabis reduces the essence
of international relations to three regularities:
1. Power always means some form of expansion.
2. Power is expansion (spatial), multiplication, extraction of benefit.
3. Foreign policy is always directed at new spheres of influence, territorial
possessions, etc.
Most geopoliticians consider it logical to believe that as long as a state
is strengthening and developing, it is expansive, and the cessation of expansion signals the
beginning of its decline. Geopoliticians often perceived expansion and the broadening of a state's sphere
of influence simplistically, as aggression and territorial seizures, which is not entirely correct and
corresponds to the realities of the 19th century. The historical experience of the second half of the 20th – early 21st century
shows that forms of expansion also include the establishment of political,
economic, financial, informational, cultural and other kinds of influence and are not always
associated with direct territorial annexations.
In general, if we set aside the ideologization of the concept of "living space," it should
be noted that it is not a propaganda slogan or thesis to justify an aggressive
foreign policy, but above all — a condition for the existence of political entities. No
state in the world has ever really existed without a certain defined geographical
space of its own.
Theories of racism arose within the naturalistic trend in sociology, which
were based on the assertion of the physical and mental inequality of human races and
the decisive influence of their differences on the history and culture of humanity. Research into racial
interactions occurring on a global scale could not fail to touch upon the issues of
international relations
The concept of "race" (from the French race) literally means the breed of certain biological organisms.
At the beginning of the 19th century this concept was applied by the founder of modern anthropology, G. Cuvier, to
define morphologically distinct types of people.
The concept of "race" was interpreted by representatives of the racial-anthropological school in
sociology both in the anthropological sense and in the ethnic sense. In the first case,
the criteria for distinguishing races are secondary morphological features of the structure of the human body: skin
color, hair type, eye shape, facial structure, etc. In the second case, the criterion is
the affiliation of certain peoples to proto-ethnic communities — large ethnicities from which
nations arose.
A vivid representative of the first direction was the French scholar J. de Gobineau,
author of the four-volume work "An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races" (1855). In his concept
he proceeds from the assertion that social development is possible only under the condition of
racial purity of society, since it derives from the innate abilities of races. The process of
race mixing destroys the way of life, leads to the deterioration of their innate
characteristics, the degradation of culture and death
J. de Gobineau argued that races are unequal in their anthropological and psychological
characteristics. The white (Caucasoid) race, created by the Aryan peoples, as the
most intellectual, dynamic and strong, should dominate over the black (Negroid) and
yellow (Mongoloid) races. World order should rest on this, in other words,
stable international relations. Social development is a function of the purity of the white race, and its
mixing with other races leads to its degradation and the death of all of human civilization.
Ammon believed that people are divided into two large groups:
1) long-headed people, whose intellectual level is very high, and who form
the social elite;
2) short-headed people of a lower intellectual level, whose role in society
should consist of performing hard physical labor.
Based on this classification by A. Ammon, G. Lapouge formulated the theory of racial
struggle, which, in his opinion, was waged between two races: fair-haired dolichocephals
(long-headed) and dark-haired brachycephals (short-headed).
one pure and exceptionally valuable, and the second a product of race mixing due to miscegenation.
G. Lapouge concludes that the main "law of the ages" consists in the extermination of the more
perfect, higher race through so-called social (in his terms, a kind of biological) selection,
which is carried out in six forms: military, economic, political, legal,
moral, religious. In the international environment, the struggle between races manifests itself in
conflicts of a varied nature, but on the whole leading to a racial catastrophe
for all of humanity.
The English scholar H. Chamberlain, in the most famous of his works, "The Foundations of the Nineteenth
Century" (1899), examines the concept of race in an ethnocultural dimension.
The Germans, in his opinion, are capable of reviving the Aryan spirit and introducing in Europe and
the world a "new order" that will rest on their dominance.
He proclaims the Jews the race that decisively corrupts the pure dominant race, bringing into it
pragmatism and mercantilism
Ideas borrowed from H. Chamberlain were interpreted even more harshly by A. Rosenberg, who
defined racism and anti-Semitism as the basic principles of the ideology of National Socialism.
This ideology declared other races (especially Slavs) inferior, over which the dominant
Aryan race (the Germans) needed to establish dominance, using their territory to
expand its own living space. It noted the necessity of resolving the
"Jewish question" by resettling and separating Jews from Aryan society, and in
the end, it was ultimately about their physical elimination.
Racial-anthropological theories are characterized by a low scientific level,
the use of idealistic value categories, a lack of evidence, and extreme
cynicism of conclusions. What they had in common was the use of the concept of "race," which stripped away any internal differences, taking as a postulate that it has common political,
economic, cultural and other interests.
social groups were generally ignored, and the state was regarded as the political organization of a race
of a lower level
The classical (or, as it was otherwise called, orthodox) theory of Marxism was formed
in the second half of the 19th – beginning of the 20th century.
Lenin argued that it derived from three main sources: utopian socialism,
the economic theory of A. Smith and D. Ricardo, and the dialectical philosophy of G. Hegel.
K. Marx formulated his theory in the conditions of the "industrial revolution" that
took place in Europe from the beginning of the 19th century and led to fundamental changes in the social
structure of society. As a consistent determinist, he made all social
relations dependent on the economic interests of classes, which he understood as large groups of people
distinguished by the criterion of their right of ownership of the means of production.
He put forward a materialist conception of society, built on the belief that the categories
of economic science are something like a universal key to all philosophical,
political and cultural problems.
consists of a determining economic "base" (a system of material-production
relations) and a "superstructure" derived from it (law, morality, ideology).
social relations reduce to antagonistic relations between exploiters (owners
of the means of production) and the exploited (the labor force).
those who are exploited are in antagonistic relations with each other, and their class
struggle is the determining social process – the driving force of history.
K. Marx and F. Engels believed that antagonism arises between classes due to the fundamental
social contradiction between the level of development of the productive forces and the relations of production
When the level of development of a society's productive forces "outgrows" the relations of production,
a fundamental transformation of its social structure occurs.
they developed the so-called materialist understanding of history.
the constant growth of productive forces leads to periodic fundamental changes
in the social order. A social order that existed for a certain long period, they
called a formation and believed that in the history of human society one can distinguish:
— the primitive formation, based on communal ownership and the equality of all members
of the community;
the slaveholding formation, based on the forced labor of slaves and
social inequality;
— the feudal formation, based on the dominance of hereditary landowners
(feudal lords) and the labor of serfs (i.e. those bound to a land holding);
— the capitalist formation, consisting in the dominance of the grand bourgeoisie
(capitalists), who are the owners of the means of production (factories and plants), and the labor of free
wage workers.
Capitalism, in the opinion of K. Marx and F. Engels, is not eternal, since the class struggle
between capitalists and the proletariat will inevitably lead to a proletarian revolution, and, on a
worldwide scale — to the overthrow of the exploiting classes of all countries. The proletarian
revolution will begin in the industrially developed countries of Europe and North America and
in a relatively short time will encompass the whole world.
The famous Russian Marxist N. Bukharin, in the work "World Economy and
Imperialism" (1915), developed R. Hilferding's idea and on its basis formulated the theoretical
foundations for understanding imperialism (from the Latin imperium – power, dominance) as a new phase
of the development of capitalism. In his opinion, in international relations at the beginning of the 20th century
it is no longer national states that come into confrontation, but national economies
as part of the world economic system. V. Lenin devoted much more attention to
international relations than K. Marx did, explaining his ideas about the immaturity of
the proletarian revolution and the possibility of victory in a single country of the world. This inevitably
would mean a certain historical period of parallel existence of a socialist
state (dictatorship of the proletariat) and its capitalist environment.
V. Lenin set out his views on contemporary capitalism in the work "Imperialism as
the Highest Stage of Capitalism" (1916), where, using statistical data on the development
of the world economy, he substantiated N. Bukharin's view on the uneven development of
capitalist countries. V. Lenin believed that such unevenness testified to the fact that
capitalism had transformed at the beginning of the 20th century into its highest stage – imperialism. In his
view, imperialism is a direct consequence of capitalist development, but at the same time represents
a qualitatively different phase and is characterized by the following economic features:
1. The concentration of production and capital occurs within the activity of
monopolies.
2. As a result of the merger of banking capital with industrial capital, an influential
financial-industrial oligarchy arises
3. The export of capital acquires special significance for the world economy, in contrast to
the export of goods in the pre-monopoly era.
4. International unions of capitalists are created, trying to divide the world.
5. The division of the world among powerful capitalist states is completed.
Imperialism, in V. Lenin's opinion, leads to reactionary changes in the superstructure
of the capitalist formation. For capitalist states in the era of imperialism, it is characteristic to
strive to strengthen dominance over colonies through a more "just"
distribution and a subsequently more "friendly" exploitation of them, intensifying the oppression of other nations,
consolidating and continuing the wage slavery of the proletariat, both in their own and in subjugated
countries. Imperialism is characterized by the growth of chauvinism and militarism, the accumulation of
contradictions among the powerful states of the world, and the inevitability of great wars.
Proceeding from the idea of the uneven development of capitalism and the inevitability of crises and wars, V.I.
Lenin asserted that "the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few, or even in
one, single capitalist country."
Developing his concept further, he argued that the victory of the socialist
revolution and the creation of a dictatorship of the proletariat (a state) in one country fundamentally changes
the nature of international relations. The main contradiction in international relations will no longer
concern confrontation between imperialist states (although it will
persist), but will be determined by the struggle between the proletarian state and its
capitalist environment.
V. Lenin's followers tried to solve this problem by developing his
idea of the proletarian state's orientation toward carrying out world revolution. L.D.
Trotsky called the constant struggle of the proletarian state against its capitalist environment, "striking at
its 'weakest links'" using armed force, which would "push forward" revolutions in
other countries of the world, a "permanent" revolution. It is appropriate to view the proletarian
state as the base for world revolution, and the content of its foreign policy
is the "export" of revolution to other countries of the world. The population, resources, economy and armed forces
of conquered countries must be directed toward the struggle against the capitalist world,
the realization of world revolution.
The Soviet military commander and military theorist M.V. Tukhachevsky, in the early 1930s,
justified the necessity of waging wars against individual capitalist states,
their occupation and the establishment of Soviet power in them by the need to expand the world base of the
revolution.
In the end, the view of J. Stalin prevailed, who directly identified and subordinated
the world communist movement to the goals of foreign policy
In the system of Marxism, materialist, scientific-deterministic and
amoralistic elements are combined with idealistic, moralistic, and religious-mythmaking ones. K. Marx
created a genuine myth about the proletariat. The mission of the proletariat – is a matter of faith. Marxism is
not only a science and a politics, it is also a faith, a religion"
This evident metaphysicality of Marxism, paradoxically, makes it akin even
to National Socialism. As is known, A. Hitler also claimed that after the construction
of the Third Reich and its victory on a world scale, world history was to end,
development would cease, and order would reign everywhere. The creator of the new order, in which there would be
no development and order would prevail, was to be the "Aryan race" of masters, which still needed to be
raised according to certain principles.
In the late 1960s – early 1970s, "Soviet" theorists somewhat
modified classical Marxism-Leninism, arguing that contemporary international
relations came down to peaceful coexistence between capitalism and socialism.
International systems, in their understanding, combined states of the same political and social
order, linked by common goals and interests on the world stage.
From the 1950s, neo-Marxism began to emerge, whose origins are linked
to R. Prebisch, who then headed the UN Economic Commission for Latin America. He
and his colleagues argued that contemporary capitalism does not lead to the convergence
of national economies, but deepens the economic split of the world into poor and rich countries.
Interpreting N. Bukharin's idea under new conditions, they regarded the underdeveloped countries
of the world as a periphery of the world economy, entirely dependent on its center.
Neo-Marxism traditionally includes the theoretical concepts of I. Wallerstein, S.
Amin, R. Cox, A. Frank, but the views of S. Strange, D.
Elkins, F. Cardoso and many other scholars are also very close to them. The main difference of their ideas, compared with
classical Marxism, lies in the interpretation of subjectivity and the sources of economic
domination in international relations. Neo-Marxists believe that under the conditions of the late 20th
and early 21st centuries:
— capitalism has become a global phenomenon, since it has outgrown the traditional framework
of national states and has turned into a world system of economic and political
domination;
— the nation-state has ceased to be independent in its own internal and
foreign policy, having come under the influence of international capitalist associations
of transnational corporations;
— the world's economic system is based on the exploitation of "third world" countries by the TNCs
of highly developed countries, while the political system rests on maintaining this position through
diplomacy and military force;
— there occurs a marginalization of internal social relations and their dependence on
trends developing in the international environment
Some authors classify structuralism as a separate scientific direction of international
political economy
One of the main representatives of neo-Marxism, I. Wallerstein, identified three main segments in the contemporary
international system: the Core, the Semi-Periphery, the Periphery:
The Core — a group of the most developed (economically) and powerful capitalist
countries, dominant in the world economy and politics.
The Semi-Periphery — a group of moderately or unevenly developed countries, which,
despite a relatively independent position, are under the influence of the Core.
The Periphery — economically backward countries, entirely dependent on the Core and
under its indirect control.
All segments form a single global world system, in which the economies of the Core
countries cannot develop effectively within national borders, and prosperity
can only be achieved within the global economic system. The policy of the Core states is
directed at the openness of national economies and the elimination of customs barriers.
Semi-peripheral and peripheral countries have quite few opportunities for independent
development, since they are under pressure from the Core.
In world history, capitalism is a unique social system, built on
openness and expansiveness, which determined its global character.
The most radical concept, and one clearly linked to classical theories of
Marxism, was proposed by S. Amin. In his opinion, in the contemporary world globalization
is determined by five monopolies held by highly developed countries. These are monopolies
over new technologies, finance, access to natural resources, means of communication, and possession
of nuclear weapons. They allow developed states to take leading positions in the
world system and to subordinate and exploit, in the interests of their monopolies, the
countries of the Periphery.
Neo-Marxist theorists widely apply the concepts of "world economy" and
"world system," which, although not identical, logically follow from one another. Following
K. Marx, they consider the world economy to be primary, its structure determining the world
system. Neo-Marxists attach fundamental importance to the structural constraints of the world
system, believing that they make underdeveloped countries a kind of hostage
of the world order. In the international system, mechanisms of structural dominance operate, which
force states to act depending on the place they occupy in the hierarchy of the system.
Neo-Marxism is not an exact copy of Marxism adapted to the conditions of the late 20th and
early 21st centuries. The main disagreements between theorists of classical Marxism and
neo-Marxism consist in the fact that "representatives of neo-Marxism do not regard
international relations as 'secondary' or 'tertiary,' they do not speak of the 'superstructural'
nature of culture or institutions." This is explained by the fact that proponents of neo-Marxist
theory do not view society through the prism of class struggle; they consider as exploiters
those countries whose well-being is based on the capitalist global economy
as a means of the newest oppression of peoples.
Beginning in the 1960s, another problem around which
serious debates arose in social science was the problem of the integrity of the world. As a result,
a new discussion emerged between proponents of the globalization approach and the civilizational approach. Within
this discussion, the final formation of civilizational theory took place, and the
opponents — the globalists — traditionally accused it of localism and particularism. Supporters of
civilizational theory, on the contrary, argued that ignoring the essential differences between
human civilizations leads to a primitive and distorted understanding of the world.
A. Toynbee, in the work "A Study of History," categorically rejects the idea of the unity of
civilization. In his opinion, the most important argument "supporting this erroneous theory is the
obvious truth that our Western civilization has cast the net of its economic system over almost
the entire world, and economic unification along Western lines has entailed, on this basis, a
political unification that has gone quite far." In reality, the world consists of a relatively
large number of self-sufficient civilizations, between which there is quite little in common. Initially A.
Toynbee distinguished 21 civilizations, but later reduced their number to 13. Alongside them there exists
a huge number of primitive societies, which "live relatively short lives, are
spread over a limited geographical space and unite not so many human
beings." Each civilization develops independently and passes through these stages:
emergence, growth, breakdown and disintegration. The processes of the development of civilizations do not
occur in parallel, which is the main reason for the unevenness of world development and
the dependence and subjugation of some peoples by others.
In 1993, in the pages of the journal "Foreign Affairs," S. Huntington published an article
"The Clash of Civilizations," in which he set out the main positions of his theoretical concept, which
was intended to become a more applicable and convenient tool for interpreting events on the international
stage than other paradigms. In 1994, he published a book of the same name, whose main purpose
was a fairly detailed argumentation of his scientific concept. The article and the book gave rise to
numerous discussions and controversial points of view about his theory.
In fact, using as criteria the features of the development of spiritual culture and
religion of individual human communities, he identified nine great civilizations that together
make up humanity: Western (Atlantic), Orthodox (East Slavic), Islamic,
Chinese, Hindu, Latin American, African, Japanese, Buddhist.
Among the civilizations he identified, S. Huntington considers the most important in the modern
world to be the following:
1. The Islamic, characteristic primarily of Arab, but also other Muslim
countries, relying on the culture of the East and Islamic fundamentalism.
2. The Western (or Atlantic), relying on the values of European culture,
also represented in mass American culture, its moral principles
based on Christianity.
3. The Chinese, based on the traditional values of Confucianism, understood
not only as a religion but also as a philosophical teaching.
4. The East Slavic, built on Orthodoxy and Russian culture
S. Huntington sees the content of contemporary international relations in the struggle and
rivalry between these civilizations, and the future – in a clash between the Atlantic
civilization, on the one hand, and the Islamic and Chinese, on the other. He
assesses the prospects of Western European civilization rather pessimistically, since, despite
the fact that the US and the countries of Western Europe continue to dominate today, nevertheless
"their share of world political, economic and military power is declining compared with
other civilizations.»
In the 21st century, in his opinion, the international system will consist of the most developed
states, around which other states belonging to the same type of
civilization will group. He argues that the new lines dividing geographical space among world
civilizations in the 21st century will become zones of extremely acute and bloody conflicts, which
will take place on the periphery of relatively closed civilizational subsystems that are hostile to
one another.
The idea linking international relations to cultural spaces is quite interesting,
although it can be criticized for excessive generalization of such civilizations, ignoring the significant
differences in the levels of development and interests of states and peoples even within a single moral system of values, etc.
E. Toffler sees the basis of civilizations not in the sphere of culture, but in the economic type
of society. In his works, the most important of which are "Future Shock," "The
Eco-Spasm Report," "Powershift," and "The Third Wave," he substantiates the concept of humanity's
transition to a new economic type – a "super-industrial," or "information,"
civilization.
E. Toffler believes that three economic revolutions have successively occurred in human
history: the agrarian, the industrial and the informational, each of which preceded the emergence
of a new society
E. Toffler argues that due to the fact of uneven development of the world's countries, different types of
civilizations are forced to coexist with one another. More progressive civilizations need
space and displace more backward ones. In particular, agricultural civilizations displaced
nomadic ones, and industrial ones displaced agricultural ones. The emergence of a new civilization,
according to E. Toffler, will be accompanied by an internal "super-struggle," in which
adherents of the new civilization will act under the slogans of: demassification,
transnationalism, ecologization and fundamental transformations of political power
Civilizational theories are quite diverse, but a common feature for them is that, unlike
the concepts of the classical school, they try to explain international
relations through an understanding of the fundamental foundations of the existence and development of human
society. This idea is quite productive, although its proponents can be accused of excessive
generalization of human communities and ignoring significant differences between countries and
peoples, observed even within societies of the same type. (Toffler, A. The Third
Wave. – K., 2000. – p. 255.)
Self-study questions:
1. Analyze the theories of international determinism and geopolitics.
2. Characterize racial-anthropological theories.
3. Reveal the foundations of Marxist theory. Characterize Marxism and neo-Marxism.
4. Characterize civilizational theories.
5. Describe international relations in the history of socio-political thought.
6. Describe the historical stages of the formation of the theory of international relations.
7. Characterize the classical paradigms of the theory of international relations: political realism,
liberalism.
8. Modernist and radical trends in the theory of international relations.
9. Characterize neorealism and neoliberalism
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 8. Theories of the International Environment
Comments