Marxist view on Constructivism

[Captain Red]

How does Marxists generally view things like Social constructivism and constructivism when it comes to international relations? The reason I'm asking is because I want to know about it from another perspective then what the right-wingers at my school thinks about it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about art.

Do you mind defining social constructivism? Is that like eugenics or something? I guess that doesn't make sense in relation to international relations though.

[Captain Red]

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about art.

Do you mind defining social constructivism? Is that like eugenics or something? I guess that doesn't make sense in relation to international relations though.I think social constructivism is more towards sociology, but what I was thinking was something called international relations theory which can be analyzed from a constructivist perspective. I think it is somewhat related with social constructivism.

[Left Voice]

I'm not really sure that Marxism and IR theory in general are easy to compare. There is a Marxist IR theory of course, but the basic premise of IR theory is the maintenance of piece between nations. The clue is in the name. It posits that nations themselves are entities that are inherent, which Marxism rejects. And indeed, Marx himself famously did not have an international theory, hence the elaborations of Lenin.

Looking at the Marxist theory of IR, Marxist IR proposes that developing nations are incorporated into the capitalist system and kept in a status of dependency so that capitalist interests within developed nations can exploit them. Marxist IR proposes that this it the most important tenant of international relations, and also forms the basis of Marxism within IPE.

This is contrary to Realism (which believes conflict is unavoidable in an anarchic international system) and Liberalism (which believes that cooperation is possible through interdependence).

Constructivism is a different beast entirely, some don't even consider it theory in a strict sense, more like a set of analytical toolsets. It is a broad umbrella, but proposes that all conceptions (be it anarchy in the international system, liberal economic cooperation or indeed Marxist class theory) are social constructs constructed by a range of sources, which Constructivism strives to identify. For example, we talk about class conflict - but what domestic and international norms shape our identity of what the working class actually is? Do these differ depending on the person, context, nation etc.? Who are the key agents involved in generating class consciousness? Capitalist bosses? The Prols? How are these affected by the international system as a whole? Or conversely, what affect does the international working class have upon the international system?

This is an example of how a Constructivist approach might be used to interpret Marxism. The two are not necessarily incompatible, but their purposes and objectives differ massively. A Constructivist isn't interested in the relationship between capital and labour, they are interested in the forces that shape these.