Liberalism is a philosophical, political and economic theory, and ideology that emanates from

the position that individual freedoms are the legal basis of society and economic order.

The ideal of liberalism is a society with freedom of action for everyone, free exchange of
politically sensitive information, limiting the power of church and state, rule of law, private
property and freedom of private enterprise. Liberalism rejected many of the provisions that
were the basis of previous theories of the state, such as the divine right of kings to rule and the
role of religion as the sole source of knowledge. Fundamental principles of liberalism include
the recognition: data on the nature of natural rights (including the right to life, liberty and
property), as well as other civil rights; equity and equality before the law; market economy;
government’s responsibility and transparency of government.

The function of the government is reduced to the minimum necessary to ensure these
principles. Modern liberalism also prefers an open society based on pluralism and democratic
government, while protecting minority rights and individual citizens. Some modern trends of
liberalism are more tolerant of government regulation of free markets for the sake of equal
opportunity to succeed, universal education and reducing the difference in incomes.
Proponents of such views believe that the political system should contain elements of the
welfare state, including state unemployment benefits, homeless shelters and free health care.
According to the views of liberals, government exists for the benefit of the people subservient
to it, and the country’s political leadership should be based on the consent of the majority of
the led. To date, the political system, which is most consonant with the beliefs of liberals, is
liberal democracy.

Nowadays, liberalism is one of the leading ideologies in the world. The concept of personal
liberty, dignity, freedom of speech, universal human rights, religious tolerance, privacy, private
property, free markets, equality, rule of law, government transparency, limits on state power,
the supreme power of the people, self-determination of the nation, enlightened and sound
public policy – are commonplace. For the liberal-democratic political systems countries are so
different in culture and level of economic well-being, such as Finland, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia,
Cyprus, Canada, Uruguay and Taiwan. In all these countries, liberal values play a key role in
shaping the new society’s goals, even though the gap between ideals and reality.

The following list of current political trends within liberalism is in no way not exhaustive. By
virtue of the fact that in Western Europe and North America, most political movements are in
solidarity with the ideals of political liberalism, there was the need for a more narrow
classification. The right-wing liberals have focused on classical liberalism, but objected to
several provisions of social liberalism. They adjoin the conservatives who share and become
traditional in these countries, political liberal values, but frequently condemn some of the
cultural manifestations of liberalism as contrary to morality. It should be noted that,
historically, conservative liberalism is an ideological antagonist, but after the Second World War
and the discrediting of authoritarian leadership role in the western conservatism began to play
a moderate flow (Liberal conservatism, Christian Democracy). In the second half of XX century
the Conservatives were the most active defenders of private property and the supporters of
privatization. Libertarians believe that government should not interfere in personal life or
business, except to protect the liberty and property of some of the encroachments of others.
They support the economic and cultural liberalism and oppose social liberalism. Part of the
libertarian believes that for the implementation of rule of law, the state must have sufficient
strength; others argue that law enforcement should be carried out by public and private
organizations. In foreign policy, libertarians generally are opposed to any military aggression. 4

Modern social liberals tend to regard themselves as centrists and Social Democrats.
Considerable influence, recently gained in particular in Scandinavia, where a series of
protracted economic decline, has exacerbated social security (unemployment, pensions,
inflation). To solve these problems, the Social Democrats have been steadily increasing taxes
and public sector in the economy. However, many decades of hard struggle for power
between the right and other liberal forces led to the effective laws and transparent
government, which effectively protect the civil rights of persons and property of
entrepreneurs. Attempts to divert the country too far toward socialism led to the Social
Democrats in the loss of power and the subsequent liberalization. So today, in the Nordic
countries prices are not regulated (even state-owned enterprises, with the exception of
monopolies), private banks, and there are no barriers to trade, including international. This
combination of liberal and social policies led to the realization of liberal-democratic political
system with a high level of social protection.

The main objectives of its policy of liberal parties most often is considered the strengthening of
liberal democracy and the rule of law, judicial independence, control over the transparency of
government, civil rights and free competition. However, the presence of the word “liberal” in
the name of the party itself cannot determine whether her right-wing supporters of the liberals,
social liberals or libertarians.

Public liberal movements also vary significantly. Some movement in favor of sexual freedom,
free sale of weapons or drugs, the expansion of the functions of private security firms and the
transfer of part of the police. Economic liberals often favor a single rate of income tax, or even
replace the income tax per capita, for the privatization of education, healthcare and public
pension system, for the translation of science to finance the self-supporting. In many countries,
the liberals are in favor of abolition, disarmament, renunciation of nuclear technology and
environmental protection. In recent years, the debate over multiculturalism has intensified.
While all parties agree on the fact that ethnic minorities should share the fundamental values
of society, some believe that the function of the majority should be limited to protecting the
rights of ethnic communities, while others are proponents of early integration of minorities in
the name of preserving the integrity of the nation.

Traditionally it is believed that the importance of Marx’s theory is the following: the doctrine of
surplus value, the materialist conception of history (historical materialism) and the doctrine of
the dictatorship of the proletariat. Often it is divided: Marxism as a philosophical doctrine
(dialectical and historical materialism); Marxism as a doctrine that has had an impact on
scientific concepts in economics, sociology, political science and other sciences; Marxism as a
political movement, asserting the inevitability of class struggle and social revolution, and the
leading role of the proletariat in the revolution that will lead to the destruction of commodity
production and private property, which form the basis of capitalist society and the
establishment on the basis of public ownership of means of production of a communist society
which aims the development of each member of society.

In his early works, Marx on the one hand condemns the philosophy behind its contemplative
consciousness, but on the other hand, strongly emphasizes the need to translate the
philosophy into reality. Thus, the widely known 11-th Marx’s thesis on Ludwig Feuerbach:
“Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, but the point is to change it”.

In some countries during some historical periods in power, there were various political parties
and movements who called themselves Marxist, or were influenced by Marxism. Marxism in
these countries is often declared as the official state ideology or that of a de-facto.

Not all policies were used and are still using Marxism to justify their actions, actually it was
disassembled and its consistent and has strong supporters. Quite often Marxism is used as an
ideological cover for plans and actions, far from the ideas and goals of Marxism. Several
modern scholars have expressed the view that the Soviet Union and certain other countries
party nomenclature used Marxist ideas in their dogmatized and vulgar representation.

All in all, the ideas of Liberalism and Marxism are incompatible in contemporary forms of
political governance because both Liberalism and Marxism were created at the time when they
were indispensable, when it was worth to try these ideas, to implement them and to study
them as well. Although for some people these ideas seem to be optimistic and promising, for
the modern world and economy, these ideas are morally old and they are not valuable for
majority of the countries, because the world have changed, the principles have changed and
capitalism is the most efficient and modern system of the current way of life that fits the
society. Anyway, both Liberalism and Marxism had the same goals- to help the society live
better, using their own principles, vision and ideas and proposing them as the best way out of
problems. These ideas cannot be reconciled in any way, but some ideas from them can be
depicted when creating a new approach that will be effective for the economy. Implementing
these ideas into the modern society and the modern world would be unreal and very risky.

Critical analysis of Realism, Liberalism,

Marxism and Constructivism
The end of the Cold War and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union signified an
unexpected and dramatic shift in the analysis of international relations. Hobsbawm (1994:559)
noted, “For the first time in two centuries, the world of the 1990s entirely lacked any
international system or structure”. Unbridled bloody ethnic conflicts; the pursuance of nuclear
weapons programmes by rogue states; and the harrowing global realities revealed in a 1994 UN
Human Security report—generated feelings of a post Cold War disorder. Enough so, that US
President Bill Clinton famously asserted “Gosh! I miss the Cold War” (White 1998:256). Building
on this, the report will critically evaluate Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and Constructivism
through a lens of power; concluding neorealism possesses a pragmatic approach under which
the varying concepts of power can be related back to. All politics is a struggle for power that is
“inseparable from social life itself” thus, international politics is synonymous with power
politics (Morgenthau 1948:18). In realist terms, power can be both material and latent, the
former based on money, technology and military and the latter based on the size of the
population and its share of global wealth (Mearsheimer 2006:73). States are the key actors in a
zero-sum, self-help anarchical system and can never be sure about other states’ intentions, so
seek to maximise their power to best ensure survival. Neorealists explanations for the end of
the Cold War is weak, the abandonment of power and sovereignty far exceeded their
theoretical predictions, as few scholars of ‘realpolitik’ would believe states to willingly abandon
and dismantle their territories (Sylvester 2000:7). Despite this, Waltz (2000:36) reinforces that
unipolarity is the least durable system and “eventually, power will check power” restoring the
system back to a stable balance. This is evidenced by the body of literature on the rise of China
and its eventual surpassing of the US economy in 2030. Liberalism attributes the end of the
Cold War to the triumph of neoliberal policies over authoritarianism and command economy;
individuals’ calls for freedom and aspiration; and superpower cooperation which led to peaceful
relations. Despite Fukuyama’s (1989:1) “end of history” claim that western liberal ideas were
the end of mankind’s ideological evolution” the 1990s saw conflicts fuelled by nationalism,
tribalism and today, there are arguments of a latent “illiberal order” (Boyle 2016:39). The
“democratic peace thesis” according to Owen (1994:88) tends to “prod liberal states into war
with illiberal states” and Freedman (2005:99) illustrates “liberal wars” are usually framed under
narratives of “just wars” legitimised on ‘humanitarian grounds' masking “liberal imperialism”.
This supports realist claims that states will ultimately pursue national interests, regardless of
regime type noting the “internal excellence of states is a brittle basis for peace” and there is
“no guarantee that

today’s friend will not be tomorrow’s enemy” (Waltz 2000:13). Liberal institutionalist’s posit
that world politics and the relations between states have been transformed through a rise of
“sovereignty-free” collectivities, non state actors, global corporations and
transgovernmentalism (Haass 2008, Slaughter 1997, Rosenau 1993, Nye 1994). Neorealists
refute such claims, stating there has been changes in the system, not transformations of the
system, reinforcing that states remain the key actors. Haass (2008) himself reinforces this,
when comparing the possible rise of the EU in relation to the US’s decline, he asserts that it is
not politically fashioned like a nation-state and will therefore not surpass it. Moreover,
neorealists argue liberal institutions give the “illusion of inclusion” but are really “vehicles for
the application of state power”(Pfaff 2004, Strange 1996:14,Waltz 2000). Rosecrance (1999)
and Ohmae (1990,1995) claim ‘globalisation’ has weakened state power, crumbled sovereign
borders, and diminished territorial conquests. Yet, politico-military geopolitics remains,
evidenced by the South China sea disputes, Crimeas annexation, the US INF withdrawal, and
exacerbating spending of state defence. Reinforcing that the traditional power politics of states
remains significant, even today. Marxism, similar to neorealism can be applied to structurally
view state competition and the maximisation of power. The difference is, instead of the
ontological nature of realism, marxism takes a more epistemological and historical approach
suggesting the state is constituted by intersubjective ideas, which in turn, forms a “social
material framework in which historical action takes place” (Cox 1996:52). It views the state as
functioning to protect the power of the bourgeoisie, by preserving the exploitation of the
proletariat (Melkonian 1996). Marxist analysis uses a Gramscian approach to evaluate the
“order” of the post Cold War global economic system in international politics, which
Wallerstein (1993:4) argued, revealed the “exploitative” economic inequalities between the
‘neoliberal hegemonic bloc’ of the developed cores and the underdeveloped peripheries. This is
evidenced in IMF voting shares, where Bangladesh hold 0.24% of votes despite its population of
164.7 million and Ireland, which holds a population of 4.7 million possesses 0.71% of the votes.
This supports realist claims that neoliberal institutions are merely tools for the application of
state power to increase shares of global wealth (Strange 1996, Mearsheimer 2006:73). As long
as globalisation continues to widen the gap between the rich and poor, Marxism will remain an
important theory of IR in the post Cold War world, as its historical roots in economic inequality
serve to efficiently explain the perpetual dependency of the global South upon the global North
to maintain state power. Unlike neoliberalism and neorealism, constructivism was able to
explain the end of the Cold War. Constructivists claim both states reinvented their identities to
no longer perceive each other as enemies. Gorbachev’s ‘Perestroika’ allowed the
reconstruction of state identity. Constructivism rejects the rationalist idea of neorealism, and
instead argues that the world

system is constituted by ideas, not material forces, emphasising the primacy of normative over
material structures. Wendt (1994:396-400) demonstrated that 500 British nukes were less
threatening than 5 North Korean nukes, illustrating the importance of ideational meanings
given to material structures. Nevertheless, neorealists claim ‘communitarian norms’ fail to
address the uncertainty and distrust in state relations which, combined with anarchy and
offensive capabilities leave little choice but to compete aggressively (Mearsheimer 1995:367).
Although realism is critiqued for its “black box” analysis, constructivism is too broad-church and
“cannot subscribe to mechanical positivist conceptions of causality”(Checkel 1998:325).
Resulting in constructivism being labelled as “a method” a “meta-theory” or “more of a
worldview than a theory” (Blair and Curtis 2009:147). Even if we peel back the black boxes of
states, the focus is always power. One of neorealism’s biggest critiques is its ontological nature,
yet it is also the reason as to why it has heralded such dominance in IR purely because
positivists do not probe the intersubjective content of events. Neorealism, thus serves as the
most appropriate theory for explaining state relations and the continual pursuit of power in a
globalised post cold war era.

Bibliography

Dalton, Yasmin. (2019). A critical analysis of Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and Constructivism in
the post-cold war era.