Globalization and Neo-Marxist Theories

This is the first time that I realize that I am touching some political theories to explain the economic world. Originally I had the perception that there are relations between politics and economics, but I could not put forward the exact example to prove my sense.

Born in the socialist state, I was taught with some Marxist theories to understand the economic world, especially from the angle of possession of materials; however, I did not realize that.

This time, the learning of neo-Marxist theories to explain the globalization in a capitalist society helped me to bridge the gap between politics and economics.

Neo-Marxists were active during 1960s and 1970s and their theories were marginalized with the demise of the former Soviet Union. It was the heat of globalization and its stagnancy in some parts of the world that brought those theories into light again.

In liberalists’ views that globalization is the panacea for the Global South. The lower the barriers for trade and finance integration, the better the Global South countries can develop in the long run. However, no matter how better those liberalists promote their theories, they could not ensure the short-run stability for those poor countries. If what they mean by “in the long run” is foreseeable in a decade, it would be more persuasive. Nevertheless, common people without professionally trained by advanced economics or brainwashed by the western values may cast doubt on this point when the international division, using natural resources or agricultural commodities in exchange of sophisticated manufactured goods. If this openness requires more preliminary loss of partial sovereignty, then the enthusiasm of change may be even lower. These analyses lead to a picture of a poorer future than even today for those economies at the bottom of the world.

As a result, the prescription is not favored by the authorities of those poor countries. They would like to use neo-Marxist theories to excuse themselves from globalization and from the vicious cycle, at least in the short term. Even the examples of fast developed Asian Tigers and China can not eliminate their fear to be the victim of neocolonialism. They coined “semiperiphery” to accommodate those leaders in the Global South and kept their attention mainly on the dependent development and the negative effect of national bourgeoisies or compradors. They may hope that the closure of the countries to the international intercourse may not affect too much as hundreds years back countries were generally independent without much intercourse. However, the world has changed with high outside pressure and little patience. Their path may not be an easy one.

Politically speaking, it is quite confused to say which way is right or at least is with rightness. The meaning of politics itself is the struggle for solving the conflicts. However, watch the issue from an economics view, maybe it is the problem of seeking the balance. If you can not ensure the long run fruit, just try to get those easier to pick up. That does not mean that those poor countries should give up and totally secluded from the global community. They should try to prepare for the openness gradually. In the sort term, they are safe and in the long run they can try to embrace the present situation. However, the treacherous assumption is that the international political system is not that violent.

The only conclusion I want to draw at the present point is:

Try to solve the problem peacefully by economics and to avoid fierce monsters in international politics.