Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
What do the theories we have looked at to this point (idealism, realism, Marxism) tell us
about the prospects, and necessary conditions, for cooperation in international politics?
As an academic field still in its infancy, much of the foundation of International Relations
(IR) is supported by theories developed by global scholars following World War I, the event
acknowledged to have instigated the current discussion of IR. Central to this discussion are
the prospects and necessary conditions for cooperation in international politics and essential
to the search for perpetual peace and the cessation of global warfare. Three of the field’s most
influential theories; idealism, realism and Marxism both explicitly and implicitly address
these central facets, and propose distinct hypothetical solutions for the future of international
politics. It is the disparity between these three theories and their respective proposals which
Considered the first world builders of IR, idealism sought to interpret the events of
WWI and provide political principles to adhere to for the future. Largely advocated by British
journalist, Norman Angell, and two-term President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson,
the theory of idealism is based off the notion that human nature is fundamentally good and
that ‘people are reasonable and empathetic’ (Dyson, 2015). In relation to the idea of
cooperation in international politics; it was the belief ‘that good people, acting ethically,
could transform the world into a pacific paradise’ (Dyson, 2015). As a consequence of
cooperation, progress of human affairs was possible through the nurture of our human nature,
and only hindered by bad institutions and values of the world. This hindrance is seen
tragically through Ned Stark in the TV series “Game of Thrones”, where an honorable and
virtuous behavior, to the point of stubbornness and naivety ultimately leads to his death. A
1
POLS1402 Christopher Mao
First Midterm Examination 2617366
12th October 2017
more tangible culmination of this school of thought; Wilson’s very own League of Nations
proposed the conduct of international politics through the exercise of democratic legal
principles and judicial process. Sprung from the widely accepted cause of WWI was in part
due to the concentration of power in monarchies, the League was built on the premise that the
more people involved in decision making, the ‘better’ that decision would be. The very
failure of the League can be argued, was due to a lack of enforcement powers, rather than
incompatible operation due to human nature. Likewise, the idea that war was a futile exercise
is echoed by Angell, albeit through an economics perspective, where nations no longer see
war as a viable option for gain with international affairs being modeled over free trade
principles (Dyson, 2015). Cooperation in large, therefore, was the product of a number of
conditions that would allow the inherently empathetic and respectful human nature to thrive.
A perfect example of the lack of these conditions is witnessed in the years leading up to
WWI; the presence of non-democratic states, weapons of war, and countless secret treaties
and pacts leading to the continental mobilization of Europe’s armed forces. Idealists believe
that it is within human nature to cooperate with another, and the necessary environment to
foster such in the realm of international politics is dependent on the existence of democracy
and order, the polar opposite of the conditions ever-present in the lead up to WWI.
stretching from 1919 to the events leading up to WWII. Largely developed by Edward Hallett
Carr, drawing upon ideas theorized centuries earlier by Italian philosopher Niccolo
Machiavelli, realism focuses on a practical approach to world politics, distancing itself from
the intellectual and naively utopic take on the human condition. It stresses that human nature
2
POLS1402 Christopher Mao
First Midterm Examination 2617366
12th October 2017
desire to dominate and compete for power. In the context of international politics, this
judgment on human nature is reflected in the nation state structure; which is believed to be in
a state of constant conflict, and the political scene as a whole described as a ‘war of all
against all’ (Dyson, 2015). As a result, progress and cooperation is viewed as a pipe dream
through the lens of realism. A much more achievable alternative and in turn, the ideal
scenario is relative stability of nation states between times of conflict. This is largely driven
by the concept of power being a fundamental desire of every human and in turn, affects the
ability of nation states to cooperate harmoniously. The basic human desire is best witnessed
through the Lannisters, particularly Queen Cersei, in Game of Thrones, who place their
pursuit of power as paramount and stop at nothing to achieve it. Realism stresses that while
cooperation between nation states can exist, nation states will only cooperate with each other
as long as it serves the interests of its own members. The notion of cooperation in the
environment of international politics is met with skepticism amongst scholars who adopt the
theory of realism, in that being human is to be selfish, and to use necessary force to promote
Separate from the conflicting theories of idealism and realism, Marxism places
importance on social and economic constructs of human society. Central to the theory of
Marxism is the world building principle that humans and politics are grouped by class. In
saying that, Marxism focuses on classes of humans rather than the drivers behind our inherent
human nature. Conceived in The Communist Manifesto by German political theorists Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels, Marxism was adopted by numerous political leaders such as Mao
Zedong and Vladimir Lenin. The separation of society by class between the bourgeois (the
3
POLS1402 Christopher Mao
First Midterm Examination 2617366
12th October 2017
middle class) and the proletariat (the working class) is the fundamental principle behind
Marxism, and is believed to exist both in relations of domination and cooperation between
both humans and nation states on the international political stage. In turn, this distinction
between classes is also seen on the political stage, between capitalist states and communist
states, each adopting the role of the bourgeois and the proletariat respectively. Prospects of
cooperation between the two classification of nation states is directly hindered by the belief
that capitalist states are expansive oriented, in constant search for new markets and territories
to exploit and profit from to the point where they may be considered “evil”. Under Marxism,
it is the principle belief that communist states and the proletariat must protect themselves
from exploitation and wait for their impending self-disintegration. In this sense, it would be
rare to see states of different classifications cooperate with another in international politics. It
was critical to Marxism that the proletariat collaborate in their fight against the bourgeois,
and it is within this condition that communist states would see a level of cooperation.
Upon exploration of these three contrasting IR theories, it is apparent that they are
notably stark views of the political environment, with circumstances highly influential on
their formulation. While early IR theory is represented by idealism and realism and their
analysis of human nature at the basic level, Marxism views humans in collective groups of
social class. The dissonance between the theories of realism and idealism are evident in the
contrasting hypotheses of the state of nature thought experiment. For idealists, in the state of
nature, humans recognize each other and cooperative behavior quickly emerges. In essence,
people are reasonable and empathetic (Dyson, 2015). On the other hand, for realists, humans
are inherently sinful, and the scarcity of food and shelter bring out the violent, competitive
4
POLS1402 Christopher Mao
First Midterm Examination 2617366
th
12 October 2017
self in every human (Dyson, 2015). These opposing takes on human nature were born from
WWI and WWII and scholarly interpretations of the human drivers behind both wars, while
Marxism was born from scholars who strongly opposed capitalism in the mid 19th century.
Each of these theories stresses certain conditions for the prospects of political cooperation,
either through a thriving positive human nature, or through a necessity for survival.
Ultimately, while these three theories provide contrasting viewpoints about the
prospect, and necessary conditions for cooperation at the international political stage, it is
impossible to unequivocally state that one approach is better than the other. Instead, each
theory should be evaluated as a direct response to the political context from which they were
created, as they are none other than products of the perceived failures of international politics
at the time. While both idealism and realism have differing perspectives of human nature as
early ideologies in the IR field, Marxism takes a distinct approach in separating humans not
by their innate condition, but by their position on the wealth hierarchy. Indeed, each theory
necessitates certain conditions for international cooperation and at varying prospects, which
References:
Dyson, S. (2015). Otherworldly Politics - The International Relations of Star Trek, Game of
Thies, C. (2002). Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case