The scope of global conflicts is expanding, their intensity and severity are intensifying, and the possibilities for resolving them are stagnating, raising serious questions about the genuine will to tackle these crises. This situation prompts intellectual considerations aimed at understanding the major transformations occurring in the world, to the extent that researchers struggle to keep up with them and find themselves unable to see the overall picture of what is happening. In light of this dilemma, this research seeks to utilize the theoretical framework for analyzing changes in the structure of relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed, as articulated by the German thinker Karl Marx in his most famous work, The Communist Manifesto.
The Theoretical Framework of Karl Marx’s Analysis
In The Communist Manifesto, Marx presented a vision of historical development logic and an explanation for how the structure of power relationships changes. Although class analysis is the critical component of Marxist analysis, this analysis can be stripped down to focus on relationships of domination and exploitation. Marx believes that the mechanisms that initially serve to impose the dominance of the ruling power may ultimately lead to its downfall. He warns us that the final stage of the oppressor’s existence follows a destructive path, one that not only creates severe crises but also seeks to destroy the very mechanisms capable of resolving those crises; the oppressor thinks that in doing so, they prevent their followers from finding any way out of the cycle of dependency.
While these mechanisms were instrumental in establishing the oppressor’s influence, adhering to the same strategy hastens their own demise and the erosion of their power. When the oppressor reaches this critical point, they are faced with significant challenges and demands from various factions, with the only real threat coming from revolutionary forces. To understand this revolutionary force, it is important not to focus solely on the intensity of its opposition but rather on the progressiveness of its demands for structural change. Therefore, the real danger to the system’s structure comes not from those who wish to maintain it and who are governed by a logic of reaction (as they primarily aim to preserve the status quo), but from those who envision a future beyond the current structure and seek to replace the oppressor itself. Marx views the proletariat as the true revolutionary force and believes that to achieve this, it must take active steps to hasten the oppressor’s decline. However, adopting a negative framework may, in fact, be more suitable in certain cases, as will likely become evident, by propelling the dynamics of events.
The Structure of the International System Through a Marxist Lens
By tracing changes in the geopolitical landscape concurrent with US dominance in the international system, we find that the rise of the United States was based on the severe depletion of major powers during the two world wars, as well as the substantial political and economic gains the US secured. It inherited a Western legacy fraught with crises distributed across different global regions, which allowed major powers to dominate the international system. These crises served as mechanisms for the depletion of other international actors, ensuring the maintenance of US hegemony on the international stage. With the increasing influence of global powers such as Russia, China, and other middle powers like Iran and Turkey, as well as their rising demands for a multipolar structure, interactions have resulted in an escalation of conflicts and international disruptions across numerous issues and crises fabricated for global control.
Returning to Marxist analysis, we can hypothesize that the conflicts that once reinforced American hegemony will transform into tools that diminish American influence and deplete American resources. Finnish researcher Edward Christie argues that we cannot assert that the United States directly incited these conflicts; rather, a more realistic narrative aligns with the fact that the US is attempting to sustain the strife provoked by its policies.
To test this hypothesis, Christie argues in his article in Foreign Policy that US policy in Ukraine prolongs the war, preventing the weapons supplied by Washington from enabling Kyiv to repel Russia or achieving a decisive Russian victory. In Gaza, historian Juan Cole from the University of Michigan claims that unconditional US support has emboldened Israel to commit crimes while wholly ignoring international law, and that this support extends the war due to a genuine lack of American will to cease hostilities. Additionally, internal wars in the Middle East, in countries such as Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, demonstrate that the absence of real American will to resolve the crises within these nations has led to a reduction in American influence. Cole’s study concludes that what’s happening in the Middle East signals a dissolution of US ties within the region, referencing a poll by the Arab Center in Washington, which found that 76% of respondents in 16 Middle Eastern countries view the US role in crises negatively. This finding suggests an overall decline in the attractiveness of the American model.
If the dominance of the American model is indeed collapsing, which other models represent the reality of revolutionary power to replace American authority while following the principles Marx emphasized? Both Iran and Russia, along with their counterparts, are striving to maintain their presence in the international system or to reclaim a role; thus, none of them represent genuine revolutionary power. Perhaps China, through its policies, embodies the aforementioned principle of propelling events and avoiding depletion. However, the challenges it faces still prevent it from imposing global hegemony. Nevertheless, Marx’s analytical model remains effective for understanding the mechanisms employed by international actors, whether the defensive strategies adopted by the US or the offensive actions taken by medium or major powers seeking to reclaim a role or replace existing hegemony by shifting dynamics at this stage. That said, the framework should not be confined to international actors alone; it should also be tested to see to what extent it can apply to hypotheses concerning the relationship between international actors and non-state actors, considering that these conflicts reaffirm and reinforce the role of the state as a key actor.
