Historical Materialism and World System Theory Flashcards
Historical Materialism
Derived from neo-Marxism and dependency theory (looking through the lense of capitalism)
apply marxist concepts to the international level
states themselves are a part of the capitalist regime
capitalism is the blanket
Epistemology: Postpositivist (reject there is a singular truth)
Emphasizes economic change as the driving force of world politics (rich and poor states)
Argues that IR can only be understood in reference to system of global capitalism (everything has to do with global capitalism. you cannot understand and explain the international system without capitalism)
Capitalism involves three basic elements: Market exchanges, political and social elevation of those with capital, and political and social subordination of those who don’t have capital
Nation-state is NOT the main unit of analysis. Instead, the capitalist world economy is. They demand that political structures/institutions, ethnicity and race, religion and culture, and even the formation and structure of households should be examined under the capitalist world economy
Actively encourages social and political change (upfront with their normative convictions to overthrow capitalism)
Variant of critical theory (well duh lets stop trade)
Focuses on contemporary world order, DOES have a solution in mind
World System Theory (differences from HM)
Epistemology: Positivist (we can use social sciences productively to solve problems)
Structural theory about historical development of world order (closer to world system history; driven from sociology)
Deep historical context, DOES NOT have a solution in mind
core, semi-periphery, periphery
core: rich
periphery: poor
semiperiphery: middle (turkey)
rich are always exploiting poor for the things that they need
someone making a product in a periphery country to a core country, but those in the periphery countries could NEVER afford on their wages
HM and Iraq part 1
KEY WORDS: oil, imperialism, hegemony, oil dynamic from WWI-Gulf War, CR vs HM
US-led invasion of Iraq intended to consolidate hegemony over Middle Eastern petrochemical core of global capitalist order (SECURE ACESS to OIL; nothing to do with freedom, terrorist, liberty: hegemony over middle eastern oil)
Iraq has been central to US hegemony since 1991; power rivalry was marked by “peak oil” logic and precipitated the invasion of Iraq after 9/11. The 2003 Iraq war was fought to reverse the decline of US international oil companies relative to state-owned national oil companies; a “friendly” Iraq could solve US power struggles like the threat of rival currencies, the dissipation of the dollar, rebasing US military power in the Middle East, preserving US strategic leverage over the Arab-Persian divide, and to maintain demand for US’s most valued export - “security services”
WST and Iraq
The US and Iraq had been on a collision course for decades due to their similarity as declining powers combating their loss of status (Both Bush prezies)
WST said this is always going to happen because over time have gone on the downward trend so to prove they are still a world power
WST different from history?
Social Sciences is about scientific tools to get answers about society (how does x cause y)
history is more about experience (doesn’t want to know the underlying reasons and match it with the outcomes)
Key words for historical materialism and World systems theory
neo-marxist, economic exchanges the driving force of world politics, capitalism, historic bloc, imperialism
what is a historic bloc?
The ruling ideology or social consciousness is supported by and replicated in a host of political, legal, religious, moral, philosophical and cultural institutions and social practices. these are the historic bloc.
HM and Iraq part 2
Capitalist state is drawn into international sphere to compete in an imperial rivalry (conflict is a way of gaining the resources you need to power your capitalist economy) HM proposes an organic link between the state and capitalist class- top gov officials are selected from social elite and are structurally linked to capital by virtue of the system “promote stability and acquiescence”
HM and Iraq part 3
Similarities between HM’s and classical realists: great power imperial rivalry over material capabilities is the central, tragic dynamic in international politics
Differences: CR’s assume leading states aspire to hegemonic control over vital resources with all the attending economic advantages that accompany.
HM’s assume the concept of hegemony refers to the systemic supervisory function that leading states have undertaken during historical periods or rivalry and encompasses many “concepts of control
“pure military,” oil market, and ideological factors cannot, in themselves, provide a comprehensive and satisfactory explanation for the 2003 Iraq War. These precipitating factors operate within the context of a broader imperialist rivalry that has been a permanent feature of US and British Policy toward the energy-rich Middle East and that has always transcended the politics or personality, party, or domestic faction*
