A Critical Evaluation of the Philosophical Foundations of Liberalism and Marxism: A Paradigmatic Comparison

Abstract

Liberalism and Marxism are two major paradigms—and in fact, two principal rivals—across the entire spectrum of social sciences, including the field of international relations. Both are grounded in distinct anthropological conceptions and possess their own theoretical orientations and ideological commitments. The purpose of this article is to compare and critically evaluate the theoretical foundations of these paradigms within the context of international relations. The central question posed is: What similarities and differences exist between the philosophical foundations (ontology, epistemology, and methodology) of Marxism and Liberalism? Using the method of interpretive content analysis, the findings reveal that Marxism and Liberalism diverge significantly in ontological terms across four dimensions: the nature of reality, the international actor, causality, and the structure–agency debate. For neoliberal liberals, reality is material-institutional and independent. In contrast, Marxists do not consider institutions to be independent; rather, they view them as serving the interests of global capitalism. Classical liberals and classical Marxists are relatively agent-oriented, whereas both neo-Marxists and neoliberal institutionalists are structure-oriented. Liberals understand causality as pluralistic and horizontal (multi-causal), while Marxists advocate for layered and vertical causality. Epistemologically, as rationalists, liberals regard objectivity and neutrality as the hallmarks of scientific knowledge. Marxists, however, not only reject the separation of fact and value but also view it as conservative and dangerous. Methodologically, liberals adopt methodological individualism and focus on it—especially as it relates to economic rationality. Marxists, on the other hand, embrace methodological holism, emphasizing the totality of international relations rather than its fragmented parts.