Convergence between Marxist and Realist Approaches in International Politics: Core Assumptions and Analytical Frameworks
Abstract
Marxism and Realism represent two foundational yet ideologically divergent traditions in the study of international politics. Realism, rooted in a pessimistic view of human nature and state survival under anarchy, emphasizes power, security, and national interest. Marxism, grounded in historical materialism, critiques capitalist structures, focusing on class struggle, imperialism, and economic exploitation. Despite their distinct normative goals—Realism’s acceptance of power politics versus Marxism’s transformative ambitions—their analytical frameworks share important convergences. This essay critically explores how Marxist and Realist approaches overlap in their core assumptions, particularly regarding materialism, conflict centrality, skepticism toward idealism, and structural constraints, even as they diverge ideologically.
1. Shared Materialist Foundations
One key area of convergence lies in both approaches’ materialist ontology:
- Realists focus on the distribution of material power (military, economic, territorial) as the primary determinant of state behavior.
- Marxists emphasize the role of material economic structures—particularly modes of production, capital accumulation, and class relations—as the foundation of political order.
In both frameworks, ideas, norms, and institutions are viewed as secondary or derivative of material forces:
- Realists are skeptical of moralistic or legalistic approaches, viewing international institutions as instruments of state power.
- Marxists dismiss idealist explanations (e.g., human rights, liberal democracy) as ideological superstructures that mask underlying class exploitation.
Thus, both paradigms adopt a materialist epistemology, prioritizing tangible, structural factors over ideational or normative ones in explaining political outcomes.
2. Centrality of Conflict and Competition
Both Marxism and Realism place conflict at the center of their analyses:
- Realists see international politics as a perpetual struggle for survival, shaped by the competitive and anarchic nature of the international system. Security dilemmas, balance of power dynamics, and power transitions drive state behavior.
- Marxists frame global politics as a conflictual space dominated by class antagonisms, imperialism, and systemic inequality under capitalism. The world system is marked by the exploitation of the Global South (periphery) by advanced capitalist states (core).
Although Realism focuses on interstate conflict and Marxism emphasizes class-based and economic conflict, both treat competition and struggle—not cooperation—as the defining feature of international relations.
3. Skepticism Toward Liberal Idealism and Progress Narratives
Both schools share a deep skepticism toward liberal and idealist claims about international politics:
- Realists reject the idea that international institutions, collective security arrangements, or democratic peace can transcend power politics.
- Marxists view liberal internationalism as a façade that legitimizes capitalist exploitation and preserves imperial hierarchies.
For both, the promise of moral progress or universal cooperation is naïve:
- Realists believe states will always prioritize self-interest over collective ideals.
- Marxists argue that international cooperation under capitalism is shaped by the needs of capital, reinforcing global inequalities.
Thus, despite their divergent normative aims, both paradigms adopt a critical posture toward idealist and liberal accounts of the international order.
4. Structural Determinism and Agency Constraints
Marxist and Realist theories share a structuralist orientation:
- For Neorealists (Waltz, Mearsheimer), the international system’s anarchic structure constrains state behavior, forcing even peaceful states to act according to the logic of self-help.
- For Marxists, the global capitalist system constrains both states and classes, embedding them in exploitative relations that shape political choices.
In both views, agency is severely limited:
- Leaders and policymakers cannot escape systemic pressures; they act within the boundaries set by overarching structures (anarchy or capitalism).
- System-level analysis (rather than unit-level or individual-level factors) is prioritized in explaining outcomes.
This emphasis on macro-structural explanations leads both to a form of determinism, where the space for transformative action (whether diplomatic or revolutionary) is tightly constrained.
5. State as a Rational Actor Instrumentalizing Power
While Realists emphasize the state as the central unit, Marxists traditionally focus on classes. Yet, Marxist approaches—particularly in world-systems theory (Wallerstein) and dependency theory (Cardoso, Frank)—increasingly treat the state as an instrument of class interests:
- States act to advance the interests of the ruling economic classes, particularly the bourgeoisie, and their position in the capitalist world system.
- Realists, though viewing the state as an autonomous rational actor, similarly assume it pursues instrumental power maximization.
In both approaches, the state’s strategic calculations—whether for power or capital—are driven by material imperatives rather than normative or ethical considerations.
Summary of Convergences
| Dimension | Realist Perspective | Marxist Perspective | Convergence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Materialism | Power (military, economic) is the key driver of state behavior | Economic structures (capital, class) shape global dynamics | Materialist focus over ideational factors |
| Conflict | International system marked by security competition | Global system marked by class struggle and exploitation | Conflict, not harmony, as baseline condition |
| Skepticism toward Idealism | Dismisses liberal claims about moral progress or cooperation | Critiques liberal democracy and internationalism as capitalist tools | Shared rejection of idealist narratives |
| Structural Determinism | Systemic anarchy constrains state choices | Global capitalist system constrains both states and classes | Emphasis on macro-structural constraints |
| State as Instrument | State as rational power maximizer | State as agent of ruling class interests within capitalist system | State acts instrumentally under systemic pressures |
6. Key Divergences and Analytical Limits
Despite these convergences, important divergences remain:
- Normative orientation: Realism is primarily descriptive, focusing on survival; Marxism is prescriptive, aiming at transformative change.
- Source of conflict: Realists attribute conflict to anarchy and security dilemmas; Marxists locate it in economic exploitation and class contradictions.
- Unit of analysis: Realists prioritize states; Marxists center on class relations and the global economic system.
- End goals: Realists seek to manage power balances; Marxists seek to transcend capitalist structures.
These differences mean that while their analytical frameworks occasionally align, their political implications and theoretical projects remain fundamentally distinct.
Conclusion
Despite their ideological opposition, Marxist and Realist approaches share significant analytical convergences in their emphasis on materialism, conflict, structural constraints, and skepticism toward liberal idealism. Both challenge optimistic or normative accounts of international relations, privileging systemic explanations rooted in power or capital. However, their divergences—in normative goals, causal mechanisms, and units of analysis—ensure that they remain distinct intellectual traditions, offering complementary but ultimately different insights into the nature of global politics. A nuanced understanding of international relations benefits from recognizing both their overlapping assumptions and their critical tensions.
Discover more from Polity Prober
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.