Marxism is a theory developed by  Karl Marx and, to a lesser extent, by Friedrich Engels in the mid-19th century in Europe. Marx (1818– 1883) was a German  philosopher, economist and political theorist, while Engels (1820–1895) was a social scientist  and  businessman. He was a German too.

Central to Marxist theory is an explanation of social change in terms of economic factors and class struggle in Western societies. According to Marxism, the means of production provide the economic base which influences or determines the political and ideological superstructure. Marx and Engels predicted the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by workers and the eventual attainment of a classless society (Mingst and Arreguin, 2011: 81).

Classic Marxist theory is essentially based on the evolution of capitalism and class conflict in the Western world. It is argued that the capitalism of 19th century in Europe emerged out of the earlier feudal system. In the capitalist system, private interests control labor and market exchanges. A clash inevitably arises between the controlling capitalist class and the controlled working class. Out of this clash, a new socialist order is born in the end (Marx, 2004).

To be more specific, Marx tried to understand how the capitalist society works, how it arose out of feudalism, and where it is likely to lead. Concentrating on the social and economic relations in which people earn their livings, Marx saw behind capitalism a struggle of two main classes: the capitalists, who own the productive resources, and the workers or proletariat, who sell their labor force to survive. Marxism is basically Marx’s analysis of the complex and developing relations between these two classes.

There are actually three sub-theories of Marxism, the theory of alienation, the labor theory of value, and the materialist conception of history. All these must be understood within the context of capitalist infrastructure.

In the theory of alienation, Marx argues that workers in the capitalist society do not own the means of production, such as machines, raw materials, or factories. These are owned by the capitalists to whom the workers must sell their labor force. This system of labor displays four relations that lie at the core of Marx’s theory of alienation: First, the worker is alienated from his or her productive activity, playing no part in deciding what to do or how to do. Second, the worker is alienated from the product of that activity, having no control over what happens to it. Third, the worker is alienated from other human beings, with competition and mutual indifference. This applies not only to relations with the capitalists, who use their control over the worker’s activity and product to further their own profit maximizing interests, but also to relations between individuals inside the working class as everyone tries to survive as best as he or she can. Finally, the worker is alienated from the distinctive potential for creativity and community. As a result, workers gradually lose their ability to develop finer qualities as members of human species (Churchhich, 1990).

As for the labor theory of value, given the fact that everything produced in the capitalist society has a price, Marx emphasizes the separation of the worker from the means of production. To survive, workers, who lack the means to produce, must sell their labor force. In selling their labor force, they give up all claims with respect to the products of their labor. Hence, these products become available for exchange in the market. Workers can consume only a small portion of the product in the market with the wages they are paid for their labor force. But what happens to the rest of the product? Marx calls it surplus value. Surplus value, then, is the difference between the amount of exchange and value created by workers. The capitalist buys the worker’s labor force, as any other commodity. The capitalists’ control over this surplus value is the basis of their power and wealth over the workers (Marx, 2004: chs. 1, 24).

First of all, it is argued that the class structure today is more complex than the capitalists-workers or bourgeois-proletariat distinction.

Second, the capitalist structure today can be said to be less exploitative.

Third, Marx argued that whoever controlled the means of production also controlled the economic infrastructure.

Fourth, the Marxist hypothesis of the superstructure that is determined by the economic infrastructure, controlled by the capitalists, to create false consciousness is questionable.

Fifth, in modern companies, there is less alienation as well.

Sixth, classic Marxist theory is too much deterministic.

Seventh, the socialist revolutions in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe did not lead to greater equality and freedom, as Marx would have hoped.

Lastly, it is argued that Marx’s grand theory is no longer relevant to today’s more complex world affairs.

Marx foresaw the modern structure of capitalism as the final phase of capitalist order, resulting from extreme concentration of capital. This was the starting point of the theory of imperialism taken by many Marxists, particularly John A. Hobson and Vladimir I. Lenin.

Methodology is a set of rules that specific methods or procedures are utilized to solve issues within the scope of a particular discipline.

Empirical testing is a way of gaining knowledge through direct and indirect observation or experience.

Neo-Marxism is not actually a theory on its own. Neo-Marxists consider themselves working within the Marxist intellectual tradition, but seek to broaden or revise Marxist thought to address topics not specifically addressed by Marx. For instance, neo-Marxists may offer an analysis of the state, economy, or politics that move beyond the simple infrastructure/superstructure interaction. They may combine classical Marxist analysis with forms of sociology, social-psychology, or even feminism.

Also, neo-Marxism tends to take a less rigid and more modern approach to analyzing a situation, focusing especially on the issues of underdeveloped and core-developed country relations.

Isolationism, in a generic sense, refers to a national policy of avoiding political or economic entanglements with other countries. Until the end of the Second World War, isolationism had been a recurrent theme in the United States political history. It was given expression in the Farewell Address of President George Washington and in the early 19th century Monroe Doctrine. The term is most often applied to the political choice in the United States in the 1930s. The failure of President Woodrow Wilson’s internationalism, liberal opposition to war as an instrument of policy, and the negative effects of the Great Depression itself were among the reasons for Americans’ reluctance to concern with politics outside the United States (www. britannica.com).

Like classic Marxism, neo-Marxism has also been subject to many criticisms. In this respect, it is said that the neo-Marxists that blame the Western countries for the underdevelopment of less developed countries display a rather reductionist approach, oversimplifying the situation. Sometimes, this approach may not even be true. Pelter T. Bauer states, for example, that there had been almost no economic growth in Africa before the Europeans arrived there. Indeed, trade and economic activities in Africa, especially in West Africa, vividly increased in conjunction with the commercial activities of the Europeans. Bauer further argues that the states that were not subject to Western colonialism, such as Liberia and Ethiopia, are currently more backward than those of their neighbors colonized. Moreover, the relationship between Western countries and colonial people is not just one-sidedly exploitative. On the contrary, through Western domination, colonial people began to experience literacy, education, science, even hygiene and sanitary methods (Bauer, 1981). On the other hand, the political impact of the West on colonial lands was greater than the economic impact. The notions, like freedom, liberty, independence, self-determination, and so on that were utilized by colonial people in their struggle against Western powers were actually borrowed from Western political vocabulary. Some other non-Marxist scholars similarly argue that there is not necessarily a positive relationship between underdevelopment and colonial past. If a country is poor and underdeveloped, that may be because of its internal dynamics, such as unsophisticated population, internal conflicts, lack of culture of democracy, frustration of basic human needs, and so on. Besides, there are many recentlydeveloped countries that have a colonial past but now enjoy a high level of prosperity, such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. Neo-Marxists, like classic Marxists, also assume that the socialist system cannot be exploitative. Yet they tend to ignore the Soviet Union’s record in Eastern Europe right after the Second World War. Roughly in four years, almost all Eastern European countries became under the political control of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union’s approach to these countries was far away from being fair. In fact, it was rather exploitative in many ways. As a heritage of the recent past, underdevelopment can still be observed in most parts of Eastern Europe. During the Soviet era, many people, including political elites, in less developed countries were attracted to the Soviet model of economic planning. Yet the model has lost its attraction since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. Historic experiences have clearly showed, at least by far that not counting/disregarding the serious distribution problem, market dynamics are superior to economic planning in providing wealth and prosperity to the general.

The Group of Eight (G8) refers to the group of eight highly industrialized nations, which include the United States, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Russia. These countries hold an annual meeting to foster consensus on global issues like economic growth, crisis management, global security, energy, and terrorism. The forum enables presidents and prime ministers, as well as their finance and foreign ministers, to candidly discuss pressing international issues (www.cfr.org).

The  United Nations  has also taken some measures to diminish the division between the North and South through the  adaptation of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000. A total of eight goals revealed within this program were eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combatting fatal diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development.

The North-South division is criticized for splitting the world and segregating people along economic lines. Many economists, from the liberal perspective, believe that free international  trade and capital flows could eventually lead to a contraction in the North-South division. Neo-Marxists, on the other hand, are not really optimistic, in this regard. In fact, they believe that free trade and flow of capital will widen the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries much further. Also, policymakers in the South are often skeptical of free trade,  and thus, have proposed alternative solutions. In 1974, the countries of the South called for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) to restructure the global economy. Some of their main demands included linking prices of commodity exports to manufactured imports, transferring technology from the North to the South, cancelling or  rescheduling foreign debts, standardizing prices for raw materials, ending starvation and food crises, as well as opening the North’s market for manufactured or semi-processed goods of the South (Ghosh, 1984).

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a country in a period (usually yearly) of time.

The permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are the five states that the United Nations Charter grants a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. These are the United States, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, France and People’s Republic of China.

Economic planning is the process by which key economic decisions are either directly made or heavily influenced by central governments. It contrasts with the liberal approach that relies on market forces to determine economic developments.

Gramsci developed the  concept of “cultural hegemony”, through which capitalism perpetuates itself. Cultural hegemony, in a generic sense, is the dominant ideology of the society that reflects the beliefs and interests of the ruling class. More specifically, the term refers to the ability of a group of people to hold power over social institutions, and thus, to strongly influence the values, norms, and worldview of the rest of society. According to Gramsci, cultural hegemony functions by achieving the consent of the masses to abide social norms and the rules of law by framing the worldview of the ruling class. It is most strongly manifested when those ruled by the dominant group come to believe that the economic and social conditions are natural and inevitable, rather than created by people, with a vested interest in a particular capitalist order (Gramsci, 1988).