Left-wing radical theories of international relations: criticism of hyper-liberalismThe most radical critics of the provisions of libertarianism, neo-liberalism, realism and other theories are traditionally representatives of neo-Marxist economic economies whose positions have been strengthened in recent years thanks to the crisis and the collapse of the official libertarian doctrine. Let us note also the circumstance that they as a whole played a very significant role in the development of modern international political and economic theory. At the same time, this direction unites a wide and diverse line of theoretical socio-economic thought, which fundamentally distinguishes it from traditional classical Marxism. Recall that in the countries of the former Soviet Union, Marxist and neo-Marxist studies are present in insignificant Mers, and many authors are literally shy to mention among the authoritative scientists and economists even the greatest thinker, Karl Marx (not to mention VI Lenin, who brilliantly investigated imperialism ).
In the West, theories of neo-Marxism had and have a certain distribution. They have always been widely represented in developing countries, especially in Latin American universities. Talking about marginality neo-Marxist concept is fundamentally wrong, especially since in the conditions of the revealed deficit of strategic ideas in the field of economic theory, now it is more likely to expect the emergence of new conceptual ideas from schools in developing countries.
It is known that a large role in the development of the neo-Marxist trend in international economic theory was played by the work of a group of scientists led by the Argentinean economist Raul Prebisch in the framework of his leadership in the 1950s. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA). During this period, Prebisch and his group of scientific advisers came out with a well-grounded criticism of the concepts of realism, which was limited in the analysis of the economic situation in the region by narrow frameworks of neoclassical views based on the approaches of "endowment with factors". Prebisch subjected this concept to devastating criticism, proving that the capitalist division of labor on the continent between the exporting countries of raw materials and the exporting countries of the finished products preserves backward forms of such division.
Having thoroughly examined the problems of "peripheral capitalism" on the example of Latin American countries, Prebisch revealed a number of interdependencies, including those related to the activities of TNCs, the specifics of continental trade, investment policy, etc. Overcoming the dependence of "periphery" from center Prebisch saw in the cardinal change in the economic policies of the countries of the continent in order to obtain, instead of an economy oriented to the export of raw materials, an economy oriented towards satisfying the basic needs of the population. Prebisch also proposed new principles of industrialization ("import substitution"), consideration of the interests of host TNC countries, etc.Famous modern economists (sometimes called neo-Marxists), including I. Wallerstein, S. Amin, J. Galtung, R. Cox, etc., define international relations as a global system of diverse states, economies, societies , ideologies and cultures. The basic concepts that these theorists operate on: "world system" ( world-system ) and world economy & quot ;. The concept of "world economy" reflects the system of interaction of international agents, in which the most economically strong play a decisive role. The main features of the world economy, according to their views, are: the world organization of production, the growth of the value of TNCs, financial organizations and commodity markets in the process of labor market segmentation, the standardization of consumption patterns, the reduction of government intervention in finance and the global trend of "financing" (manipulation of financial instruments), total privatization. These conceptual provisions in general reflected the reality that existed in the world economy until 2008.
The neo-Marxists harshly criticized the capitalist world system for reducing social spending, dismantling the full employment policy, changing tax (fiscal) systems in favor of rich strata. They rightly pointed out that states lose their social functions, the population remains alone with powerful corporations and banks that receive elements of state power (together with social functions that go to them). As a result of this policy, the process of increasing inequality between members (agents) of the international system is accelerating. And this, in turn, leads to the fact that peripheral agents of the system (underdeveloped countries and regions) are deprived of even remote opportunities to close the gap between themselves and the "centers". Especially sharp criticism was imposed on the ideology imposed on the world "hyperliberalism" (radical liberalism, libertarianism), designed to serve the interests of rich countries and the wealthiest part of their population.
Hyperliberalism views the role of the state purely in the interests of global market forces, rejecting even attempts to redistribute part of the wealth in favor of poor countries, considering it a "protectionist intervention" (in this - the essence of the concept of F. Hayek and M. Friedman). The neo-Marxists emphasized that this reactionary radical liberal ideology, which dominates the world, inspires the mass consciousness with the idea that there are no alternatives to the globalization of TNCs, since we are talking about objective economic laws. This differs little from the former establishment of the dogmas of Marxism (the "iron laws of Marxism"). At the same time, supporters of hyper-liberalism are frankly called upon to serve the interests of developed countries and ruling strata in poor countries, including in the new capitalist countries (Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia); they tend to ignore the opposite tendencies that are developing in the modern world system: alienation of an increasing part of the society from political, social, sociocultural relations imposed by the alliance of power and large corporations. Theorists of neo-Marxism firmly reveal the extreme injustice of modern international economic relations and require its qualitative revision. Because center stubbornly strives to preserve its privileges and the opportunity to profit from unequal exchange with the "periphery," the latter increasingly less and less closely associates its interests with the "center": poor countries and their peoples do not see incentives for themselves in their pursuit of rapprochement with the " center & quot ;; accordingly, autonomist processes develop on this basis. All this, obviously, generates a new dangerous situation that can not be managed from the "center". The way out of this situation, in the opinion of neo-Marxist thought, lies only in the ways of abandoning the neo-liberal policy, which, in Samir Amin's view, is "unbridled globalization". Such globalization is a consequence of the five monopolies that caused its destructive nature for poor countries and peoples: a monopoly on new technologies, a monopoly on the control of financial flows, a monopoly on access to natural resources, control over strategic communications, a monopoly on the possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, the main task of the center-dependent countries peripherals Is the implementation of the break strategy with the existing system through the destruction of the domination of the "center" above the province & quot ;. To this end, analysts believe, it is necessary to form the "front of antisystem forces". Such a front can be created through positive nationalism in contrast to obscurantist ethnic, religious and chauvinistic forms of nationalism that are widespread and stimulated by big-cap strategies - TNCs and TNBs and their governments. The very interpretation of positive nationalism on the part of the radical criteria of neoliberalism presupposes regional cooperation and proceeds from the need to form tightly integrated countries, regions that economically and politically cooperate with the border countries. They can wage an active struggle against the above "five monopolies" for their independence from them. Integration education in Latin America, Africa, the Arab East, Southeast Asia around the continental countries (China and India), as well as in Europe - if they are based on popular and democratic unions - will eventually force "Big Capital" evolve in the direction of the demands of precisely such unions of states and peoples. Further, such unions should develop programs for organizing intra- and inter-regional economic solidarity and interdependence, including stimulation of capital markets, expansion of investments in production and other sectors, mutual trade, etc. The totality of such programs can give a powerful dynamism to the processes of democratic reorganization of states, down to the level of the world system. According to S. Amin's concept, they (programs) can become tasks for the long-term "transition from world capitalism to world socialism passing through a series of steps."Similar ideas are developed by another prominent representative of the left-radical theory of international economic relations, R. Cox, quoted above. He analyzes the processes of globalization, the rapidly growing power of big capital, while the growth of poverty and the failure of states to fulfill their social functions. This, in turn, inevitably leads to an increase in people's discontent not by individual parties of the existing system, but by the global system as a whole. Therefore, the ever greater coordination of people's and institutions' activities, the establishment of ties between them, must inevitably intensify, which can have an increasing impact on the world system, changing it in the direction of humanistic evolution.
Note that left theoretical economists and their views exert a definite influence not only on research in the field of international political and economic relations, but also on the sociology of international relations. And this is not accidental: any dominant theory, for example radical neoliberalism, which basically reflects the interests of ruling strata, is characterized by decline, dogmatism, degradation, and deficit of perspective (strategic) ideas. Scientists acting from radically different positions, aiming to radically change the global situation, find more promising and exciting ideas, contrasting them with outdated tenets of libertarianism, for which governments and large corporations are still clinging to the development of a global crisis in the most severe forms from which first of all, hundreds of millions of ordinary people living on wages suffered.