Vladimir Lenin’s theory of imperialism builds on the theory of capitalism as advanced by Karl Marx. He in fact considers imperialism as the premier stage of capitalism (Lenin, 88). In essence, his theory begins from where the theory of capitalism ends. In simple terms, the theory of capitalism comprises of the private ownership and control of goods and the means of producing the goods within a state. The controllers or owners, referred to as the bourgeois, utilize these factors to accumulate profits.
Lenin argues that over time, the bourgeois amass a lot of profits, creating an inequality between production and demand. The local markets become saturated meaning that the state cannot generate more profits. In order for the bourgeois to accumulate more profits, find raw materials, and market for their goods, they turn to what he refers to as undeveloped economies. According to him, since the bourgeois cannot venture into such economies individually, they merge creating a new class of bourgeois in the form of companies or corporations.
Unlike capitalism, under this theory the bourgeois do not control or posses goods or the means of production, but rather have lots of money obtained from capitalism in the state. This money is used for what he refers to as finance capitalism; ideally the investment of the money in the undeveloped economies. Lenin regards the finance capital as the main form of capital. Through it, the bourgeois are able to control the undeveloped state politically. Such control is what he regards as imperialism.
In summary, Lenin explains imperialism in five steps: concentration of capital and production; merger between industrial capitals and banks, essentially forming monopolies; export of finance capital; creation of international monopolies; and the partition of the world amongst the monopolies (Lenin, 89).
Ann Tickner argues that feminist perspectives are kept out of the mainstream debate on international relations due to misunderstandings between feminists and international relations scholars (3). She argues that as a result of these misunderstandings, these two groups talk about varying worlds and employ different perspectives to understand them. This lack of consensus precipitates debates that deflect the real issues from the main issue of international relations.
She opines that the gender issue, which is central to feminism, leads to unnecessary and often controversial debates. These debates sidetrack the real issues that feminism would present to international relations. One example of such debates she presents in the debate whether women are more peaceful than men and consequently whether the world would be more peaceful if women were in charge. She argues that this debate contributes very little to the attainment of world peace and gender equality, which is what feminism advocates for.
Feminism revolves around gender equality thus a feminist perspective on any issue looks at the position or role of a woman. Accordingly, a feminist analysis of global terror would look at the role played by women in terrorism and how terrorism affects women. In terms of role, it would consider whether women are aggressors or victims. It would also seek to understand the cause so as to deal address the problem. This differs from a realist analysis which would be focused on the perpetrators of terrorist; the persons likely to be terrorists and how to deal with them. Such an analysis would pay little attention to the cause; the central issue being how to effectively respond to the threat.
Political Culture Theory
Fukuyama opines that the wide acceptance of democracy across the world marks the end of history (48). According to him, there cannot evolve or emerge any other system comparable to democracy. The recent surge in radical Islam however poses a challenge to this view, especially given its opposition to democracy among other western ideals. On such basis, some scholars are of the opinion that there may be other alternatives to liberal democracy. However, to Fukuyama, radical Islam is a side show that cannot provide an alternative to democracy.
Given the recent events in the Arab world, a place where radical Islam would suffice as an alternative to democracy, one is inclined to agree with Fukuyama. One of the main causes of the Arab spring has been the tyranny of those in power. Even though there is no consensus as to what form of government the proponents advocate for, there is a consensus that an authoritarian government is untenable. Ideally, the Arab world is slowly embracing the concepts of democracy. This means that support or potential support for radical Islam is dwindling in favor of democracy or at least its ideals.
In addition, globalization has made the world seem like a village, with coexistence based on basic shared values and ideals; key among them, democracy. Those that do not share such ideals are usually isolated. It goes without saying that such isolation is usually detrimental. Accordingly, no country wants to be in isolation and most strive to meet these basic ideals. This means that radical Islam is unlikely to get many sympathizers. No matter the number it would get, it cannot compare to democracy. Consequently, it is safe to say that it cannot provide an alternative to liberal democracy.
Works cited
Fukuyama, F. The End of History and the Last Man Standing. New York, Free Press, 2006.
Print.
Fukuyama, F. “The west has won: Radical Islam can’t beat democracy and capitalism. We’re
still at the end of history” The Guardian. 11 Oct. 2001. Web. 25 March 2013.
Lenin, V.I. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. New York, International Publishers,
1969. Print.
Tickner, A. J. “Why Women Can’t Run the World: International Politics according to Francis
Fukuyama” International Studies Review, Volume 1, Issue 3. 2002: 3-11. Print.
