Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the relevance of Marxism has been said to have died with the end of the Cold War. For most international relations analysts Marxism, as a theory, stands on the periphery of the discipline. The writer points out that few, in particular the realists, accredit it for any theoretical or practical relevance for the study of international affairs. The writer proposes however, that theorists need not feel threatened by Marx's attempt to wither away with their theories. On the contrary, taking Marx more serious as an international relations analyst will render decent theories for still prevalent problems of our international society. The writer concludes that with his treatment of the domestic and external environments, the inequality of distribution and the process of globalization, Marx addresses issues at the heart of contemporary international relations debate.

From the Paper
"Marx's class struggle is universal and it is therefore that a differentiated form of international relations as we acknowledge it today does not exist for Marx; there are only the relations of class struggle. If we apply the definition, there are few theories any more revolutionary than this one. For contemporary international relations analysis this is an interesting view-point, in particular for the behaviouralist-school seeking to challenge realist presumptions of state-centric theory. This fundamental dichotomy of the domestic and the external, Fred Halliday echoes, is not so far-fetched when looking at our current state of affairs in the world. And yet, it remains to be acknowledged that Halliday wrote these words in 1988, when the demise of the monopoly of revolutionary internationalism - the Soviet Union - had not fully accelerated yet. The post-1989/1991 era has witnessed a lot of revisionism on such appraisals as Halliday issued them here; to some extent, one might even argue, realism has gained more momentum through the apparent evidence the collapse of the Soviet bloc provided in favour of the security dilemma and the necessity of conflict until one of the adversaries is dead. Nevertheless, with the question of just how influential the domestic is in international diplomacy, Marx's treatment of this dichotomy lies at the heart of current international relations debate."

Tags:globalisation, state, society, class, struggle

Abstract
The paper provides an historical, analytical and critical analysis of development theories. It traces development from modernization, as a globalization project and as a post-structuralist construction. The paper argues that post-structuralism in development studies has opened a wider debate in critically understanding development theory and practice, but the paradigm falls short as a historical project for emancipation and empowerment.

Table of Contents:
Introduction
Modernism, Marxism and Neoliberalism vs. Post-Structuralism
What has Post-Structuralism done in the Development Debate?

From the Paper
"The crisis of development theory and practice dates back in the 1980s when development as a project failed to alleviate majority of the people from poverty, the crisis of alternatives to neoliberalism due to the collapse of socialism, and the claims of diversity and rejection of homogenisation of the category "Third World" (Simon 1997). The rise of the neoliberal discourse - roughly the emphasis on the market over the state in governance - reached its global scope as hegemonic states and international institutions implemented the Washington Consensus across regions: structural adjustment programs (SAPs) in Latin America and Africa, 'shock therapy' liberalisation and privatisation in post-communist countries, and financial liberalisation coupled with currency devaluation in Asian developmental states as a response to the 1997 Asian Crisis. This interventionist prescription resonating from the international down to the local levels represent what critiques of this development paradigm call modernist or structuralist view on development. Post-development discourse is founded on three critiques to modernization theory: the failure of the development process to alleviate the poor and the marginalised from poverty and hunger; the exclusion of the participants themselves from the formulation of these development strategies; and the over-emphasis of Marxist and Modernist theories on structures rather than agency towards social change."

Tags:globalization, studies, theory, modernization

Abstract
This paper sets out to examine if E.H. Carr was a realist, a Marxist or a critic of Utopianism. After describing his background, the paper examines how much Carr conformed to the standards of a classical realist. The paper also examines why it has been so hard to answer the question about Carr's reputation as a realist and concludes that not only was Carr a realist, but he was also a utopian, a functionalist, and a romantic.

From the Paper
"E.H Carr seems to be one of the most enigmatic writers in the field of International Relations. After looking up numerous sources, the position Carr came from still remains a mystery. Questions of whether he was a Realist, a Marxist or just a spiteful critic of Utopianism have still not been completely satisfactorily answered. Still, numerous answers have been out forward, and in this essay I will examine the ones I thought made most sense, and attempt to hopefully put forward my own opinion of exactly how much of a Realist Carr was. I will begin in relatively orthodox fashion, by looking at how much Carr conformed to the standards of a classical Realist, and juxtaposing that with how much he didn't conform to those same standards. I will then move on to an examination of exactly why it has been so hard to answer the question above, and then conclude by seeing how much of the question has been answered to date. First though, we need to put Carr's arguments into some sort of context by looking briefly at his history. Carr matured in a world where world security and peace was not really analyzed or commented upon. What changed this peaceful state was the First World War, and more importantly for Carr, the Bolshevik Revolution. This event proved to be a catalyst of sorts for Carr, and changed his vision of the world and to some extent his personality, dramatically. The world he inhabited became the one he commented the most upon, and most writers on his arguments have cautioned that this needs to be kept in mind in any examination of Carr. Thus, background duly noted, we can now move into answering the question itself.
To what extent was Carr a classical Realist? This question answered in different ways by different writers, but because space is limited, I will take here the two who seemed to answer the question best. The first answer I will put forward was originally thought up by Charles Jones, who said that Carr was a Realist who conformed to the standards of Realism he himself defined. The best example of this is the opening few chapters of The Twenty Years Crisis', in which Carr defines Realism as having two main tenants; Firstly, that sovereign states were the prime actors in an international system that was irremediably conflictual because of the flawed character of mankind and its own anarchic structure. Secondly, that statesmen were permitted to exercise amoral behaviour in the sphere of international politics because of these distinguishing characteristics which marked it off from the sphere of international politics . Thus according to Jones, Carr was a realist on his own terms, and not according to classically ascribed ones. Peter Wilson's argument for Carr being a Realist also runs along these lines. Wilson puts the version of Carr most commonly seen in IR forward first. According to this classical version of Carr, morality came about as a product of power, not vice versa; The diplomat was entitled to 'cloak the interests of his country in the language of universal justice '; The clash of interests between states was real and inevitable; Utopians were delusional dupes who only worked for their the fulfilment of their own vision; and that public interest was as wrong-headed as was it impotent . These two slightly views of Carr, though not completely identical do go some way towards showing why Carr was, prior to the in depth research done afterwards, seen as a hard-line classical Realist. Most basic realist assumptions and arguments are evident in the various points listed above, and as all of the points come from Carr's works themselves, it isn't hard to infer that he was in fact a hard-line Realist. But, Carr's arguments weren't confined to only the principles outlined above. In fact, they had much more depth to them than that, and this depth is what led to the 'Carr question ' being asked in the first place. How much then, does Carr not conform to the standards of a classical Realist?"

Tags:Bolshevick, revolution, anarchy

Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that while orthodox Marxism prophesying the breakdown of capitalism and the advent of a classless society, as well as Marxist-Leninist Soviet foreign policy, became indeed obsolete as soon as the Cold War ended, in other areas Marxism continued to have a strong influence. In the second part of this analysis it is argued that Marxism remains after the end of the Cold War a major source of inspiration for alternative ways of thinking to the pre-dominant neoliberal consensus, especially in the development debate. In the third and last part it is further argued that Marxism is also of great value to the study of international relations in the area of nationalism.

From the Paper
"Thus the critique Marx made of liberal economics in the nineteenth century is today of equal importance to the critics of the present neoliberal world order in the development debate and the anti-globalisation discourse. Certain revisionist countries in Latin America led by Venezuela for instance have in the last years found Marx a great source of inspiration if not for their true policy aims at least for a markedly anti-American rhetoric. Only recently the Italian government fell because two ideologically motivated communist senators voted against the expansion of an American military base."
"Traditionally, Marxism is criticised precisely for failing to provide a coherent account of international relations. In particular, he is said to lack a theoretical framework to understand armed conflicts. Yet the international is central to Marx's thought and it therefore remains crucial to the study of international relations. While Marx does recognise the importance of the state in international relations, unlike realist theorists he regards social class rather than the state as the fundamental actor in international relations."

Tags:revolutionist, theory, foreign, policy, society

Abstract
This paper provides a pragmatic evaluation of Karl Marx's paradigm and his contribution to classical and contemporary sociological theory. It is an attempt to make clear, by philosophical criticism, the value, purpose and relevance of Marx's work. Marxism is a very broad field and this paper does not necessarily cover every single aspect of it. Instead, not sacrificing depth of analysis, it examines only Marx's theoretical assumptions about how society's technological superstructure relates to its respective economic base. In addition, commodity is the main key concept explored since it synthesizes and represents an important aspect of Marxist epistemology and is indeed a concept free from 'pure' theoretical abstraction. Therefore, the paper also establishes commodity as a tangible, practical and relevant concept that is still used as a framework to explain technocracy in high-modernity.

From the Paper
"Marx's theoretical approach has received critical attention from postmodernist thought sociology which has largely rejected his orthodox social analyses. For instance, Jurgen Habermas, a member of the Frankfurt school argued that one of the weaknesses of Marxist epistemology is the assessment of human evolution as just an economic and technological progress. He insisted that evolutionary progress can be discerned not only in the sphere of technical control, but also in the sphere of social and moral development (How, 2001). In addition, he also suggested that Marx's theory of capitalism is too deterministic since that it encompasses a known end. In this way, Habermas reconstructs and expands Marx's ideas by eliminating notions of evolutionary stages and revolution by moving Marxist analysis to social scientific and critical inquiry. "

Tags:hegel, commodity, capitalism, habermas

Abstract
This paper examines feminism in its historical context and then analyzes certain feminist critiques of socialism including Marx's theory that women's oppression stems from her inability to work and Engel's theory of the role of family in Marxist thought. It attempts to show how the two concepts are central to the question of whether feminist critiques render socialism redundant.

From the Paper
"Second wave feminism coincided with revisionism, which attempted to question established theories by re evaluating them 'from below'. Up to this point history, social sciences and politics had been viewed 'from above', i.e. by looking at and from the middle class male perspective. Revisionists re interpreted the Russian Revolution from the point of view of the peasants and exposed the myth of the Blitz. Feminists demanded the same: analysis of those activities that were formerly seen as outside the realm of politics - including sexuality, motherhood and childrearing - by taking these apparently domestic issues into the public arena. Fairly early in the movement, feminism divided into two main groups: radical and liberal. "

Tags:engel, revisionism, marx, marxism, oppression

Abstract
This paper discusses how although Marxist and functionalist sociologists both have very different views concerning the sociology of religion, they both see religion as a conservative force which discourages social change. It looks at how functionalists, such as Durkheim and Parsons, argue that religion is central to the reproduction and maintenance of social order in society and how by encouraging members to conform to the practices, values and beliefs of the religion, society is controlled. It shows how for functionalist sociologists the main role of religion is to socialize society's members into a value consensus and how functionalists argue that religion is a beneficial conservative force because it maintains consensus, integrates people into society and promotes social order.

From the Paper
"Functionalism can be seen to completely ignore the dysfunctional consequences that are caused by religion and so their argument that religion contributes to a value consensus necessary for social order can be seen as an invalid claim. Both functionalism and Marxism have been criticized for failing to consider the process of secularization in their arguments. This consequentially makes their claims that religion has the power to repress social change be considered as implausible. A further criticism, which perhaps is the most important and can be applied to Marxism, functionalism and the feminist argument is that they completely ignore examples of religious movements which have brought about radical and social change in their arguments."

Tags:functionalism, fundamentalism, liberation, marxism, protestant

Abstract
This paper embarks on an examination of the work of post-war critical theorists Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse who capture the dominant themes of post-war Critical Theory well. It proceeds to show how many parallels are evident between post-war Critical Theory and the more recently formulated postmodernist theories. An examination of postmodernist theories then ensues, taking as exemplars the work of Baudrillard, Jameson and Harvey. It concludes by arguing that postmodernist theories do indeed revisit the critique of modern culture, which post-war Critical Theory began and they do so without the political commitment to Marxism. An explanation for this follows, discussing the events which "shattered a whole generation of French intellectual's beliefs in the moral supremacy of Marxism" and sheds light on the climate which ultimately paved way for the emergence of postmodernism.

From the Paper
"Advertising encourages individuals to view themselves primarily as consumers, and under the guise of entertainment, audiences are manipulated into accepting and conforming to existing society. Kellner captures this sentiment well claiming "advertising progressively fuses in style and technique with the entertainment of the culture industry, which in turn can be read as a series of advertisements for existing society and the established way of life" (1989:33). The culture industry is designed to discourage individuals from challenging the given order, to think critically and indeed, think for themselves. "The need, which might resist control, has already been suppressed by the control of individual consciousness" (1995: 121). Adorno and Horkheimer show how the products of the culture industry are similar to those produced in a factory, sharing their belief that "under monopoly all mass culture is identical". (1995: 121)."

Tags:adorno, baudrillard, capitalism, horkheimer, jameson, marcuse

Abstract
This paper embarks on an examination of the theories of Marxism and argues that a specific engagement with "The Communist Manifesto" should prove to be fruitful in fulfilling this task. It points out that the theories of Marxism were based on the notion that the degeneration of capitalism would contribute to its eventual downfall, however the antithesis of degeneration has occurred. Hence, one could argue that the theories of Marxism carry no more relevance in an age of global capitalism. Despite this, this paper goes on to contend that to leave ones analysis at this would make it incomplete. One needs to go below the surface and back to "The Communist Manifesto" where amongst the passages one will find Marx and Engels anticipating and providing a vivid account of the global capitalism the world is now experiencing and a number of examples to support this are cited. Further evidence is cited which explains the reasons why the proletariat have not revolted. It concludes by noting that countless changes have occurred in the world since "The Communist Manifesto" was written which may well have led to a decline in the "fashion" and significance of Marxist theories.

From the Paper
"Central to Mar's views on the capitalist system lies his notion of "surplus value" which is the difference between the value of capital at the start of the capitalist production process and the additional value of commodities, which are produced. Surplus value only occurs in capitalist societies. The critical point that Marx makes is that the bourgeoisie or the minority of individuals appropriate surplus value or profit, which is in reality, produced by the rest of society namely the proletariat. Someone else reaps the product of their labor, they have invested their time and efforts in it, yet it is taken away from them. The profits of capitalist depend on the exploitation of the worker."

Tags:bourgeoisie, communism, engels, manifesto, proletariat, revolution

Abstract
This paper looks at a variety of theories and ideologies including culturist and Marxist. It also considers theoriests like Storey, Gramsci and Fiske for example, while drawing upon their relevence within a post modern society.

From the Paper
"Popular culture is an area of great discussion and debate. Raymond Williams claimed "culture" was "one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language." This essay seeks to discuss issues and theories surrounding its definition, as listed by Williams (but cited in Storey 2001) , whilst bringing in its position within society as defined through different ideologies."

Tags:communication, culturist, hagemony, ideology, journalism, marxism, media, modern, post, social