Acceso usuarios
El sistema internacional atraviesa desde la crisis financiera del 2008 una crisis orgánica, en el sentido gramsciano del término, que refiere a la conjunción de una crisis hegemónica y una crisis de acumulación de capital que evidencia el agotamiento de una estructura histórica y de un modo de reproducción social. Algunas visiones en la literatura especializada sostienen la idea de la crisis de la globalización y del orden internacional liberal heredero del orden mundial posfordista que emergió luego de la década de los setenta. En esa misma línea, la literatura se adentra en la explicación de que el mundo actual transita un conjunto de transformaciones estructurales en las que se produce una amalgama de crisis que se manifiestan como “síntomas mórbidos” y que caracterizan un escenario de interregno. Otras visiones argumentan que asistimos a un impasse, una desaceleración económica que ha provocado una globalización más lenta, en la que el orden internacional liberal basado en reglas aún persiste ante el espectro de una nueva guerra fría. Si bien estas visiones presentan matices entre sí, poseen una idea común que refiere al cambio y reconfiguración de las relaciones globales de poder y del orden mundial que prevaleció hasta el momento. El interrogante que surge a partir de ello es: ¿qué tipo de orden mundial se está configurando? El presente artículo argumenta la necesidad imperiosa de retomar los postulados teóricos que ofrece la tradición marxista, en especial la vertiente del materialismo histórico de la teoría crítica de las relaciones internacionales y de la perspectiva neogramsciana de la economía política internacional para determinar las distintas manifestaciones de la crisis orgánica actual, los cambios que se están produciendo en el sistema internacional y la reconfiguración del nuevo marco de las relaciones globales de poder. Luego de repasar algunos conceptos y categorías analíticas de la obra de Karl Marx y de la corriente marxista para el estudio de las relaciones internacionales, revisamos los postulados de la teorización crítica heredera de dicha tradición que, a su vez, conceptualiza y adapta las ideas de Antonio Gramsci a lo internacional. A partir de ello, estudiamos la dinámica del blocco storico de la globalización, su crisis y algunas manifestaciones de la etapa actual.
This article takes up the postulates of Karl Marx’s work and Marxist theory, and analyzes them to deal with the current phase of change and transformation of the international system. An important premise of this contribution is that it is impossible to understand international relations in the post-Fordist world without considering the ontological and epistemological discussion that has taken place in IR since the 1980s. From this point onwards, some central concepts and analytical categories of Marxist thought, such as conflict, accumulation, social classes, transnationalization, hegemony, state, and nation, have been adapted from Critical Theory to understand and determine the dynamics of international relations.Since the financial crisis of 2008, the international system has been in an organic crisis, in the Gramscian sense of the term, which refers to the coincidence of a hegemonic crisis and a crisis of capital accumulation. That is to say, there is evidence of the exhaustion of a historical structure and a mode of social reproduction. Some literature argues that we are witnessing the crisis of globalization and the liberal international order, which is the legacy of the post-Fordist world order that emerged after the 1970s. In the same vein, the literature explains that today’s world is undergoing a series of structural changes in which there is a fusion of crises that manifest themselves as “morbid symptoms” and characterize an interregnum scenario. Other views hold that we are experiencing an impasse, an economic slowdown that has led to a slower globalization in which the international order based on liberal rules persists in the face of the specter of a new Cold War. Although these visions differ from each other in nuances, they share a common idea that refers to the change and reconfiguration of global power relations and the existing world order that has prevailed until now. The question that arises from this is: what kind of world order is taking shape? This article argues for the need to take up the theoretical postulates of the Marxist tradition, particularly the historical materialist aspect of Critical International Relations Theory and the neo-Gramscian perspective of International Political Economy, to determine the various manifestations of the current organic crisis, the changes taking place in the international system, and the reconfiguration of the new framework of global power relations.In this way, we shall try to determine the relationship between the phenomena we observe in a broad sense, and an understanding of the origin and the way in which world orders are historically represented (vis-a-vis Critical theory of International Relations and the neo-Gramscian perspective of International Political Economy). Attempts are thus made to overcome the state-centered and liberal-institutionalist view that has dominated international relations, and, at the same time, examine from the perspective of historical materialism the mutual constitution of modes of production and social relations in a concrete historical structure.To this end, the article systematizes the various contributions that have been made by Marxist thought from different disciplines for the study of “the international”. Swathes of work can be utilized which provide fundamental concepts and categories to understand the dynamics of capitalism and the way it has reconfigured the actors of the international system, particularly the state. As a result, and despite the differences that emerged among Marxists between the 1960s and 1970s who followed the so-called “crisis of Marxism”, an alternative position appeared on the scene in the 1980s to discuss some of the presuppositions put forward by the dominant currents of IR. These emergent alternative discussions have initiated a debate – and a dialog – between Marxist historical sociology, the neo-Gramscian perspective and open Marxism, in an attempt to understand the world under the historical structure of neoliberal globalization. What is interesting here is the emphasis that the different currents place on explaining new meanings of the concepts and categories of classical Marxism. This is also a reflection of two particular threads which attempt to take up the legacy of Karl Marx’s classical work: the structuralist and historicist currents.This paper engages with the work of Robert Cox, who stated that theory is “always for someone and for a purpose” (2013, p.132), and that every theory has its perspective derived from a position in time and space that is both political and social. In this sense, Cox argues that theory can serve two different purposes: the first leads to a problem-solving theory that accepts the pre-existing world “as it is”, accepting the prevailing social and power relations and the institutions within which they are organized as a framework for action (Cox, 1999). 1999). The approaches of liberal institutionalism and rational choice, as well as structural realism and the structuralist world-systems perspective, could be seen as examples of approaches based on a problem-solving theory. The second purpose is Cox’s theoretical invention to (re)think international relations and the discipline of IR itself. Critical theory is pertinent here because it questions the prevailing order of the world and the way it came to be. In this sense, institutions, social relations, and power are not considered as given elements but, on the contrary, are interrogated for the purposes of anlaysing whether and how they change. Critical theory aims to capture the framework of action — the problem — that problem-solving theory takes as its parameters (Cox, 2013, p.133). It is concerned with the social and political complex, i.e. the political, which refers to the sphere in which human activity, relations of production and class forces take place.History will therefore be a fundamental tool in tracing the antecedents of our reasoning. It should be viewed as a dynamic process in constant change and reconfiguration, such that the concepts we use must constantly adapt to explain the changing subject matter and phenomena –unlike problem-solving theory, which is ahistorical, or ahistorical postulating, as Cox states, “a continuous present” (2013, p.134).The article poses the challenge of elaborating a framework for action that allows us to construct a critical genealogy of the dynamics of the structural power of transnational capital and its relation to globalization. Moreover, this allows us to examine its crises, from a socio-historical approach to globalization, considering the structural transformations and processes of change in the world order in recent decades.The structure of this article shall be as follows. After the introduction, the main concepts and analytical categories of Marxism will be set out in relation to the history and theoretical cartography of International Relations. The next section will focus on the so-called fourth debate, its significance, and its specificities -of which critical and reflexive theorizing is central. In particular, the neo-Gramscian perspective of international political economy is important here. In this sense, we problematize the notion of the “bypassed challenge” of Marxism and the current of historical materialism in international relations studies. Next, we examine the concepts and adaptations of Antonio Gramsci’s work that attempt to explain the relationship between world hegemony, social relations of production and types of state. This will make it possible to articulate the perspective of transnational historical materialism to characterize the historical structure of globalization. On this basis, the dynamics of the historical bloc of globalization, its crisis and some manifestations of the current phase are examined.
