MARXISM STILL MATTERS

The collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991 was seen by
many as the triumph of capitalism over communism. As such, with communism seemingly not
commanding much influence in todays global affairs, many individuals have dismissed Marxism
as an irrelevant and outdated set of ideas. However, it is my argument that in the 21 st century,
characterized by a globalized capitalist world economy, Marxism is still relevant as it acts as an
effective tool in highlighting and explaining exploitative relationships between core and
peripheral countries. As such, I will demonstrate my main argument through a critical
engagement with Immanuel Wallersteins World Systems Theory.
I will begin by detailing particular facets of Marxists ideology which relate to my main
argument. The first of these facets is Marxs theory of primitive accumulation which I will speak
to in relation with the origins of capitalism. I will then draw a direct link between the social
relations of production referred to in the theory of primitive accumulation and Marxs labour
theory of value. Subsequently, I will detail how Marxs labour theory of value exposes one of
capitalisms inherent flaws. Then, I will show how this flaw has led to the expansion of
capitalism and the replication of local exploitative relationships among countries on an
international level. I will then engage with Wallersteins World systems theory in an effort to
demonstrate how the previously discussed Marxist theories help make meaning of global
economic relations in todays world. Through this process, I intend to demonstrate that Marxism
is still relevant as it can be used as an effective tool in highlighting and explaining exploitative
relationships between core and peripheral countries in todays globalized capitalist economy.
In an investigation into the origins of capitalism, Derek Hall (2012) puts forward in his
text Rethinking Primitive Accumulation, that Marx, like Adam Smith, [questioned] how the
capital that must exist for capitalist production to occur was originally accumulated (para.2). In

MARXISM STILL MATTERS

an attempt to answer this question, Karl Marx (1894), in his text Das Kapital, details his theory
of primitive accumulation. This theory observes that like all its predecessors, the capitalist
process of production proceeds under definite material conditions (Marx, 1894). However,
Marx emphasizes that the material conditions reflect definite social relations entered into by
individuals (1894). These conditions, as with social relations, are both prerequisites and results
of the capitalist production. Therefore, according to Hall (2012), Marx insists that the origin of
capital is based in a social relationship in which property-less labourers are compelled to work
for capitalists who hold the means of production as private property. These property-less
labourers are obliged to work because they trade their labour as a commodity in exchange for the
wages necessary to purchase goods for survival. As such, this theory, in summary, describes the
ways in which capital social relations are created and produced (Hall, 2012).
Moreover, this emphasis on the social relations of production translates into Marxs
labour theory of value. According to Jonathan Wolff (2011), in his article Karl Marx, this
theory implies that a commoditys exchange value is not intrinsic, but rather depends on societys
division of labour and system of economic interdependence in which different people produce
different products or sale on a common market (para.6). In order for the owners of the factors of
production to obtain a profit, the workers have to labour beyond that which is necessary to
create the value of his or her wages (Wolff, 2011, para.6). In this way, Marx views that the
ability to make profit in capitalism is dependent on exploitation and gives rise to antagonistic
relationships amongst the proletariat and bourgeois classes.
In addition, Marxs labour theory of value reveals one of the inherent flaws of capitalism
which, according to Marx teleological view of history1, will contribute to its inevitable demise.
1 Marx, like Hegel and Kant had a teleological view of History. A teleological view of History is
one in which humanity is viewed as moving in the direction toward a better and more perfect
civilization, and this progression can be witnessed through the study of the history of

MARXISM STILL MATTERS

This significant flaw as emphasized by Joseph Diedrich (2013) in his article The Business of
Living is that in order to compete in the market and maximize profits, the owners of the factors
of production must keep the prices of their commodities low (para. 1). As such, in order not to
reduce the quality of their goods, most producers will opt to cut the wages of labourers.
However, over time, this reduction of wages would inevitably lead to the increasing inability of
the proletariat to purchase necessary goods from the owners. What results is a counter-productive
situation where owners cut wages in order to competitively produce commodities which the
workers cannot afford to consume. In this way, according to Margaret Kohn (2014), in her
article Colonialism, although Marx never developed a theory of colonialism, his analysis
arguably establishes the innate tendency of capitalism to expand to new market as one of the
driving forces of colonialism. This global economic expansion is in order to find new markets
wherein excess consumer goods, which local workers cannot afford, can be sold in order to
generate more profit.
Immanuel Wallensteins World Systems theory, developed in the 1970s, effectively
utilizes these Marxist ideas as a tool to provide insight into the global economic relations
between countries in the 20th century. Wallenstein writes in the post-World War 2 period wherein
the world had undergone a massive period of decolonization. However, remnants of colonization
and global capitalism were still evident in the relations of production between different sets of
countries. Wallerstein (1974), in his text, The modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture
and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century initially defines in
his World Systems theory, as a multicultural territorial division of labour in which the
production and exchange of basic goods and raw materials is necessary for the everyday life of
civilization. However, unlike his colleagues, Marx viewed this historical unfolding as based in
material production.

MARXISM STILL MATTERS

its inhabitants (p.73). Therefore, we see replicated, but on a global scale, Marxs relations of
production, in that certain (often post-colonial) countries, referred to by Wallerstein as the
periphery, remain in exploitative relationship with the core countries in order to survive, produce
and reproduce their means of life.
In addition, Wallersteins core-periphery relationship model could also be described as a
structural one wherein there exists a power-hierarchy between wealthy core societies which
dominate and exploit weak and poor peripheral societies. These two societies are geographically
and culturally different. The peripheral societies focus on labour intensive production and create
cheaper, lower value often agricultural goods or raw materials for core societies. The core
societies, on the other hand, focus on capital intensive production and create high value goods
which are then traded to peripheral countries 2.This set of relationships creates an inherently
unequal system of trade where peripheral countries are dependent on core countries for survival
and core countries extract profit from peripheral countries. Thus, the expansion of capitalism has
visibly lead to the creation of a global capital market which mirrors, on an international scale, the
exploitation which had existed within the individual countries of capitalist western Europe.
Cases of this exploitative relationship can be observed all around the world. For example
according to the Britannica Encyclopedia (2014) entry on the West Indies, many peripheral
countries in the Caribbean and Latin America have economies which are shaped by their history
of slave labour and colonization (para.4). These countries, like many other peripheral countries,
were colonized by empires such as Britain, Spain and Portugal. These empires engaged in
exploitative relationships with these Caribbean and Latin American countries for the purposes of
2 In Wallersteins theory there also exists a third category called the semi-periphery countries.
According to Wallerstein (1974), these are industrializing, mostly capitalist countries which are
positioned between the periphery and core countries. This category of countries is not
significant in the scope of this discussion.

MARXISM STILL MATTERS

extracting cheap raw materials to fuel their capitalist economies and as an outlet to dispose of
excess commodities to secure greater profit (Britannica, 2014, para. 5). After colonization,
because of relations of production which reproduce the system of exploitation, many of these
countries remained dependent on core countries to export a limited base of agricultural raw
materials in return for the refined materials they require to survive. In particular, Jamaica, for
example, was at one point, known as the worlds largest bauxite producer, exporting this raw
material to core countries in North America and Europe (Britannica, 2014, para 8). However,
Jamaica never stood to benefit from this relationship as majority of the profit to be derived rests
in the sale of the final product- aluminium, and not in its raw material- bauxite. Jamaica, as a
newly independent, post-colonial country, in the 1970s did not have the capacity to produce
aluminium because of the high energy which this process demands. As such, the country had to
purchase the finished aluminum products from the core countries to which it had originally
exported the bauxite. What resulted is that core countries profited from this exploitative
relationship.
Moreover, Immanuel Wallensteins World systems theory is arguably even more relevant
in the world economy of the 21st century. Robert and Jean Gilpin(200) in their article The
Challenge of Global Capitalism, expands Wallensteins argument by stating that the end of the
Cold War in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 sparked an international debate
on the nature of the New World Order which they call the Second great age of Capitalism
(para. 1). They stated that the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, coupled with
intense neo-liberal economic globalization, lead to expectations of a world characterised by
open and prosperous economies, political democracy and international cooperation (Gilpin &
Gilpin, 2000, para. 2). However they comment that, instead, what has been observed is a

MARXISM STILL MATTERS

powerful negative reaction to globalization in both core and peripheral economies (Gilpin &
Gilpin, 2000, para. 2)..
This negative reaction, according to Jeffery M Aynes (2004) in his article Framing
collective action against neo-liberalism, is evident in the rise of the so-called anti-globalization
movement (p.11). This movement is taking the form of a number of transnational, boisterous
and well-attended protest events against neoliberal globalization at the end of the 21st century.
Protests have taken place from Seattle (1990 WTO protests), to Chiang Mai, to Prague, to
Quebec City and Genoa, representing both domestic and international solidarities committed to
challenging neoliberal policies and institutions which perpetuate global inequality (Aynes,
2004, p.12).
This increasing dissatisfaction among the oppressed in all countries (not just the
periphery), bears spectres of Marxs predicted unification of the proletariat across all countries in
the overthrow of capitalism (in this case, in the form of global neo-liberal economic policies).
Could this be the beginning of a response to Marxs popular 19th century cry: Working men of
all countries unite!? As stated by Gilpin and Gilpin (2000), certainly, the future of the
international economic and political system will be strongly affected by the relative success or
failure of the proponent and opponents of globalization (para. 11).
In conclusion, even though communism, as an ideology, does not appear to command
much influence in todays global affairs, Marxism still matters. The relevance of Marxism lies in
its use as an effective tool to highlight and explain exploitative relationships between core and
peripheral countries in todays global capitalist economy.