In the pantheon of great thinkers, Karl Marx certainly ranks as one of the most influential, even if it has been said that no thinker has ever had his words more badly misrepresented, by supporters and detractors alike, than Karl Marx. After Marx, no social discipline was safe from an assault by Marxist thinkers. However, while the views and insights brought to bear by Marxists have helped to illuminate relationships in some disciplines, the Marxist worldview has been less successful when applied to certain human interactions.
For example, Marxist perspectives on global power relations have been assailed by many critics. Because Marx himself was especially concerned with economics, his followers have tended to elevate economic concerns, including the class struggle and control over the means of production, over all other areas. Thus, when analyzing the balance of power on a global level, key concepts such as nationalism, security, and the state are virtually ignored by Marxist scholars.
On a theoretical level, it may be useful to strip away these concepts to more closely examine certain other dynamics at work, but the Marxist view often fails to describe what actually happens in the real world. Consider the strong nationalism evident in Poland, even after generations of one-party Communist rule.
Also, the Marxist devotion to capitalism leads to simplifications on the world stage. Marxist political scientists typically refer to the "world capitalist system" when analyzing interactions among nations, but this definition has less and less relevance when applied to the variety of economies at work in the world. Where do countries with transitional or developing economies such as China, Russia, and North Korea fit into this schema? Ultimately, a Marxist view of global interactions sacrifices a great many crucial concepts at the altar of one overarching economic perspective. Some critics have likened such a view to an analysis of Shakespeare’s Hamlet that neglects to discuss the protagonist and his motivations.