An Analysis of Globalization: Constructivism, Commercial Liberalism and Marxism Essay

Globalization is perchance the most defining char seteristic of the 21st century. The the Statesn move for clear market ideals, facilitated by the approaching of the Internet and other communication technologies, has conduct to the increased interaction and interrelatedness of people. Therefore, globalisation also raises enkindle implications for the field of foreign relations. How can this monumental event be analyzed? Globalization and its consequences can be interpreted and dissected through three major schools of thought constructivism, commercial liberalism, and Marxism.A modified red ink view can explain the starting causes of globalisation but not modern day causes, inter subject area liberalism can explain the resulting global macro rest, and constructivism can explain counter-reactive microwars prevalent in the multi field of study carcass. To begin, Marxism is based on a critique of uppercaseism and normative commitment to communism. Marxism has various strains , but Marxism-Leninism and neo-Marxism deliver the most weighty synopsis of globalisation.Robert Gilpin, in his article The Political Economy of International Relations identifies four comp unitarynts of Marxism-Leninism Marx conceived three of the points, and the lowest is Lenins own modification. First is the law of disproportionality which attacks the idea of supply and demand. Since capitalists can progress to goods easier than consumers can buy them, free market economies will always over-produce certain goods. Next is the law of capital concentration. Since competition forces capitalists to produce efficiently or face extinction, capital eventually accumulates in the hands of a select few.This discrimination will ultimately fuel the anger of the p fibretariat and lead to social transition. Third is the law of falling profit rate. Marx predicted a complex chain reaction, where toil-saving devices would fuel under(a)- surfacelay, overproduction, and mass unemployment . However, when the social revolution did not run in the post-World War I era, Lenin revamped Marxs communist ideology with his fourth law, the law of uneven development. Lenin asserts that the revolution failed to occur, because capitalists had used imperialism as a metaphorical release valve. Developed nations had managed to dump their goods and capital in coloniesand concurrently acquire tatty raw materials. This outlet and source of inputs relieved the pressure on capitalism, allowing it to continue for the judgment of conviction being. The second variation of Marxism pertinent to globalisation is neo-Marxism, specifically Wallersteins piece, Core and Periphery. Core realms occupy great index finger positions in the international system and can perpetuate a system where they remain in adult male power over the periphery. Core states have two defining characteristics strong state machinery, coupled with a national finis The periphery states are characteristically weak, and could even exist as merely a colony.They leave out unity through a national ethnic and have very weak state mechanisms every a corrupt and bloated bureaucracy or a virtually non-existent one. Wallerstein alleges that the current international system is one of core states exploiting periphery states. In the article, Globalization and the Trade in Human Body Parts, Harrison attributes the causes of globalisation to a massive crisis of both capital accumulation and of state legitimacy in the 1970s.According to him, capitalist states of the western faced an inability to produce the correct quantity and distribution of goods, consistent with Marxism. Furthermore, the push for efficiency led to advent of labor-saving devices and the accumulation of capital in the hands of the few. All of these occurrences caused the high unemployment and inflation characteristic of the mid-1970s. As goods and capital piled up with high levels of joblessness, compromises that had underpinned the p ost-welfare state gave way once more to conflict among labor and capital. This conflict embodies the final death rattle of capitalism before a revolution topples it. However, globalization utilised the Leninist release valve and stabilized the unconditional countries free market system. According to Harrison, cheap inputs and ample new markets for consumption allowed Western nations to resolve its crises of capitalism and legitimacy. He defines globalization as the establishment of world-wide ex converts in labour, flip-flop, technology, and capital between nations possessing different sparing, military, and political powers. Since globalization has an inherent pro-liberal, capitalist bias, it creates unfair exchanges. Harrison fights that the market for human body move follows this pattern and mimics other unequal exchanges between developed and maturation countries. In this particular market, the organ donors escape to originate from developing nations like India, Arge ntina, and China. The recipients tend to live in developed nations, with the most transplants performed in the US with Europe closely behind. Harrison defines this flow of organs and transplants as exploitation.All in all, the causes of globalization rest in capitalisms desperate bid for viability. However, Harrisons proposed causes for the start of globalization do not substantial make sense. His chronicle through the Marxist paradigm correctly pinpoints economic incentive as the overarching objective lens for globalization. Developed nations, full of goods and capital, perpetually search for outlets for their goods and for natural resource sources. This assumption fundamentally underlies the theory of the free market.However, Harrison looks to the 1970s, to the start of visible globalization, and links a crisis of capital accumulation to the economic turbulence of the 1970s. But, from the perspective presented in Kirshners article Keynes, Legacies and Inquiries, the problems in stead stem from supply-shocks, creating cost-push inflation and recession. A supply shock results in lacking(predicate) levels of aggregate supply to meet aggregate demand. The OPEC oil embargo of the mid-1970s, starting in 1973, delivered this effect and caused the strong stagflation of the time.Therefore, macroeconomics is partially in conflict with the Marxist view of globalization. Developed nations did not face a crisis of capital accumulation instead, they faced a crisis of productive capabilities. Due to the lack of crude oil, producers could not create nice goods to meet the demand. Therefore it makes more sense that developed nations pushed for a global providence to secure cheap natural resources, preferably than look for more sources of demand. The idea of capital accumulation crisis must be abandoned, along with the ominous predictions of violent revolution.After such considerations, a theory of macroeconomic Marxism succinctly locates the starting origins of global ization. However, this explanation delivers an progressively poor explanation for modern day globalization and its progression past initial causes. The economies of developing nations have gone through a tertiarization process, defined as the transition of an economy into predominantly service-oriented jobs. This change has led to decreased manu eventuring and decreased American exports. Marxism offered a convincing ancestry in the 1970s and untimely 1980s, when America had a large trade surplus and a minor trade shortage.However, Americas trade deficit has ballooned to astronomical proportions as the shift away from manufacturing has become more pronounced. Therefore, the idea of developed nations, or core states, exploiting and preying upon developing nations, or periphery states, for markets no longer makes sense. What can explain globalization in the 1990s through the modern day? With the rise of East Asian NICs, as Steven worns article names them, and developing nations li ke India and China, wealthy nations have grown increasingly qualified on their cheap goods.As these poorer manufacturing-based powers rise, they hold much more power on the world stage. Huntington supports this boldness in his article, The Clash of Civilizations, stating that non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of historybut join the West as the movers and shapers of history. This non-Western empowerment deeply contradicts all strains of Marxism, which contain some rich-poor exploitative element. Neo-Marxism and Harrisons fundamental argument places globalization in the context of wealthy nations using capitalism and unequal exchanges to take advantage of poorer nations.However, core states of economic power no longer completely dictate the rules of the game, and use periphery states as dumping cubic yard for goods. Instead, the opposite has occurred rising periphery states have begun to rapidly manufacture goods and export them to the core. This inversion of Marxism explains the continued push of globalization, now fueled by the flow of goods from developing to developed nations. This interaction can even be exploitative in the opposite direction. For example, America has accumulated an enormous trade deficit with China.This burgeoning trade deficit is very advantageous to China, strengthening the value of its currency. However, Kishner describes the deleterious effects of this occurrence in his article, stating that it forces the burden of international adjustments on deficit countries The disproportion also weakens the dollar and erodes confidence in its ability to store value. Gilpin also alludes to the positive and negative effects of a trade surplus in Politics of Transnational Economic Relations, mentioning how America tolerated the 1. 5 billion trade surplus that Japan enjoyed in the 1970s.America has tried to use hot air and diplomacy to resolve this issue but does not dare to use each stronger tools due to its colony on Chin a as a trade partner. In this example, China gains economic power at the expense of the American dollar. Developing countries sometimes occupy the throne of power on key issues this setback deeply contradicts Marxism. Finally, commercial liberalism can be used to understand the effects of globalization. According to commercial liberalist Richard Rosecrances article The Rise of the Trading State, trade, capitalism, and free markets are forces of peace.Commercial liberalists believe in the use of trade to forge communication and connections with other nations. Eventually, a net of economic interdependence will form, which discourages war. War in this environment destroys trade opportunities, and therefore, increases the political consequence of declaring war. These strains of thinkers in turn consider imperialist interests to be in utter conflict with trading interests. A country either chooses to embrace free markets and trade or impose heavy mercantilist restrictions.According to this theory, peace occurs when a country trades autonomy and the quest of national power for more extensive access to resources of the world. Markets further facilitate peace by allowing the spread of nuance and understanding. This trading and ethnical exchange eventually leads to a peaceful world of trading states, rather than various imperialist nations competing for hegemony. In Jihad vs. McWorld, barber identifies two occurrences closely linked to globalization that ironically oppose and fix each other simultaneously. First is the argument of a global macropeace, facilitated by global trade. neaten makes the argument that no nation is truly independent, connected by everything from the environment to pandemics. neaten further postulates that positive economic forces that have globalism as their conscious object act to bind nations together. These forces have also deeply decay national sovereignty as multinational corporations and international banking systems lack any nation al identity and do not reflect any particular nationhood. These global economic devices do not exist under the jurisdiction of any individual nation, which according to barber, has renewed efforts for international peace through an international economy.Concurrently, this system has also turned religion, culture, and ethnic identity into marginal elements of a working identity. This erosion of differences facilitates a peace throughout the world, with the pursuit of wealth undermining any war like tendencies. Furthermore, Barber talks about the mingle of culture as well as trade, describing this concept as a product of pop culture driven by expansionist commerce. The idea of globalization also refers to the cultural imperialism of the West.More youth well-nigh the world idoloize American pop culture figures, like Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga. Foreign children whoop it up Coco-Cola and salivate over Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Cadillac cars. American culture has permeated the entire world from pop icons to the golden arches of McDonalds this fact is undeniable. This intermingling of culture again facilitates cooperation and understanding between nations, decreasing the chance of war. Barbers argument is a convincing argument of commercial liberalism. The essence of this paradigms argument is the idea of commerce breeding interdependence.This fact could not be clearer now, during the most devastating economic collapse in over eighty years. As Eurozone nations flounder, the American stock markets dip and rise, based on news of their actions. This certainly smacks of a deep, systemic structure in which consequences for one nation affect many other nations as well. In such a system, a broad scale war would be most detrimentous, as damage to one nations economy would impact the whole. Furthermore, cultural exchanges between nations certainly seem to have brought people closer, as the world becomes an increasingly smaller place.This two-pronged event has cr eated a world where all-out war between states is now politically unseductive and economically unfathomable. Barbers analysis explains both the market independence and the increased level of cultural mixing in the world it also explains why wars between two nations have grown antiquated in the post-Cold War era. Nevertheless, a significant counterargument can be made through to this idea. Many argue that although much of the conflict is not between states, war does stillness exist.The whole world has not entered Barbers future tense in shimmery pastels, a busy portraitwith refrain music, fast computers, and fast food Even more would argue that much of the world abhors the cultural influence of the US, citing it as unrighteous or hedonistic. Huntington mentions a return-to-roots sensation among non-Western states, with states starting to turn in and focus on their own regional identities. With many nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran still practicing religious law passionately an d pockets of ethnic warfare still existing in Africa, it sometimes seems counterintuitive to talk of a global peace.However, the identification of a counter-reaction to the globalization can explain all these seeming contradictions. Barber identifies this point through the use of constructivism. Constructivism makes the argument that familiarity of the event does matter in truly understanding an international occurrence. In Henry Naus article, why We Fight over Foreign Policy, he strongly focuses on the political, economic, social identity of a state or states when defining constructivism, emphasizing the ideas, norms, and valuesthat shape their discourse and identity. Constructivists believe that ideas and ideology drive nations to act in certain ways, often creating positive relationships with similar countries and harboring hostility toward those different. Constructivism does have one major disadvantage it cannot make a policy prescription for a problem. However, it does often prove poignant in analysis of current events and in prediction of future events. This perspective is immensely effective in understanding Barbers argument and refuting the aforementioned criticism.His argument is bipartite after identifying the macropeace, he identifies a phenomenon that he nicknames jihad, referring to any violence motivated by dogmatic and violent particularism. This form of conflict relates to the construction of ones identity, whether by ethnicity, language, religion, etc. According to Barber, violence stems from people of differing identities resisting the homogenizing influence of globalization. It can be seen as a reactionary event to the growing uniformity of the world to Western cultural norms and ideas, facilitated by the unification of national markets.This return-to-roots search for identity eventually takes a violent form against those who have differing identities. This causes the various microwars, defined as most regional conflicts between two group s, rather than states. Barber cites examples of many people, fighting identity-based war on the pretext of self-determination, including Jews, Kurds, Arabs, and Ossetians. These conflicts are the essence of constructivism, isolating identity-based differences as a major source of international conflict. However, Barbers constructivist theory is not without detractors.Samuel Huntington, author of the Clash of Civilizations, has a different idea of the world. He describes vast swaths of land as individual civilizations and describes conflict on two levels the micro-level where small groups in different civilizations scrape and the macro-level where states from different civilizations for hegemony. He does not define terrorism as a reaction to American globalization and the erosion of Islamic identity, but instead as conflict between Islamic and Western civilizations.Barber contrastingly defines conflict as intracivilizational, rather than transcivilizational, between people without c ountries inhabiting nations that they just cannot call their own. Huntington also predicts that future conflict will grow bloodier, due to increasing awareness of civilizational divides and these conflicts will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations. In opposition, Barber portends a future in which the macropeace will ultimately win out although, jihad will continue to be seen spontaneously.Despite the intuitive nature of Huntingtons theory and predictions, it is precisely too reductionist and parsimonious to adequately explain the complex world of international relations. He omits whole continents in his argument and completely assumes homogeneity at bottom civilizations. These criticisms are eloquently expressed in Katzensteins article A World of Plural and Pluralistic Civilizations. He voices the same fundamental disagreement as Barber, that civilizations are not internally uniform. He describes them, not as simply larger nations, but as loosely couple d and internally differentiated. This idea of differentiation supports Barbers assertions, agreeing with the idea of major clashes occurring within civilizations, rather than between civilizations. Katzenstein also references that this fact has been proven with both qualitative and statistical means. In this regard, Huntington seems rather flippant, disregarding empiricism for an intuitive, simple theory. Despite a smooth and logical premise, Huntingtons opinions about the world can be quickly refuted. Huntingtons predictions about the future also seem less spotless than Barbers, because Huntington neglects an important facet of the world.Huntington does not mention economic interdependence at all in his piece, despite its overwhelming influence in every facet of life. Utilizing Rosecranes theory of trading states, economic self-interest will cause the macropeace to win out, consistent with Barber. Globalization is unavoidable. Its methods and consequences are ubiquitous, from the food one chuck to the job prospects one faces. It has had both negative and positive effects on the world, facilitating both economic successfulness and global terrorism.The initial causes of globalization can be analyzed with a modified Marxist viewpoint. However, as the phenomenon has progressed, Marxism no longer provides a convincing argument. The intricate economic web connecting the nations of the world through globalization can be understood through commercial liberalism. The contrasting sectarian violence also resulting from globalization can be understood through constructivism. As globalization changes and as Americas role on the world stage grows, these analyses will mostly likely grow and develop as well.