Chapter 2: Theories of International Relations & Zombies

2.5: Critical Theories & Marxism

While traditional theories like realism and liberalism focus on power, states, and institutions, critical theories in international relations push us to ask deeper questions: Who holds the power? Who is being exploited? Whose voices are being silenced? Critical theories challenge the mainstream perspectives of IR by emphasizing issues of inequality, oppression, and emancipation. They argue that global politics is not just about state security or economic cooperation, but also about addressing power structures that perpetuate social and economic injustices. These approaches offer fresh perspectives on how international relations are conducted and open the door to questioning the fairness of the global system.

One of the most well-known critical theories in international relations is Marxism, which interprets global politics primarily through the lens of economic class struggle. Rather than viewing states as the central actors in world affairs, Marxism focuses on how economic classes—especially capitalists and workers—shape the international system. According to this perspective, the global political system is dominated by capitalist powers that exploit both the working class within their borders and the less-developed nations of the Global South. Wealthy countries maintain their dominance by extracting labor and resources from poorer regions and funneling profits back to the capitalist core. This process generates global inequality, where a small elite accumulates wealth at the expense of the many. For example, multinational corporations often extract valuable resources—such as minerals, oil, or cash crops—from developing countries at minimal cost, while leaving behind low wages, environmental harm, and few opportunities for economic advancement. Marxism thus offers a structural critique of global capitalism, arguing that exploitation is not a side effect but a core feature of the system.

Building on Marxist foundations, Dependency Theory applies these ideas directly to the structure of the global economy. Emerging primarily in the 1960s and 70s from scholars in Latin America and beyond, dependency theorists argue that the relationship between the Global North and the Global South is one of systematic exploitation and dependency. Rather than all states participating equally in a global market, the world economy is divided into a core (wealthy, industrialized countries) and a periphery (poorer, resource-exporting countries). Poorer nations are often locked into roles as suppliers of raw materials and low-cost labor, while wealthier nations dominate manufacturing, finance, and technology. Because the profits from global trade flow disproportionately to the core, the periphery remains underdeveloped and dependent, unable to build the industries or infrastructure needed to escape this cycle. According to dependency theorists, this is not just a historical legacy of colonialism—it’s an ongoing process embedded in the rules of international trade and finance.

Two of the most influential voices in this school of thought are Andre Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein, who helped formalize and globalize the theory of dependency. Frank argued that underdevelopment in the Global South was not the result of internal failures or lack of effort, but the direct outcome of historical and structural connections to the global capitalist system. In his view, development in the core actively produced underdevelopment in the periphery—a condition he called the “development of underdevelopment.” Wallerstein expanded these ideas into a broader World-Systems Theory, which categorized countries into a core, periphery, and semi-periphery, emphasizing how the global capitalist system operates as a single, integrated unit. In this system, core countries maintain dominance not just economically, but politically and culturally, reinforcing their status through control over institutions like the IMF and World Bank. These frameworks show how, from a Marxist and dependency perspective, international relations are not a level playing field, but a deeply unequal structure that favors the few at the expense of the many. In a world already divided by wealth and power, would a zombie apocalypse level the playing field—or just deepen the class divide, one barricade at a time?

Marxism: The Rich Get Bunkers, the Poor Get Zombies

If a zombie apocalypse ever breaks out, don’t expect the rich to be running for their lives—they’ll be running for their private bunkers while the rest of us fight off the undead with canned beans and a baseball bat. Marxism views international relations primarily through the lens of economic class struggle, and in a zombie apocalypse, this theory would highlight how the capitalist system exacerbates inequality and exploitation. Marxists would argue that the wealthy elite would leverage their resources to shield themselves from the crisis, while the working class—especially in poorer countries—would suffer disproportionately. The rich might retreat to fortified bunkers, hire private security forces, or escape to exclusive, well-protected safe zones, leaving the working class to fend for themselves in overcrowded cities with little access to food, medicine, or weapons. In a capitalist system, survival itself could become a commodity, where only those with money have the means to escape the worst of the crisis. Governments and corporations would likely prioritize protecting economic elites, while the most vulnerable populations would be left to deal with the outbreak largely on their own.

A real-world parallel can be seen in how disasters like pandemics or economic crises disproportionately impact the poor. During the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier individuals had the ability to work remotely, access private healthcare, and stockpile essential supplies, while lower-income workers—often in frontline jobs—were more exposed to the virus and had fewer resources to cope with economic hardships. Similarly, in World War Z, wealthy and well-connected individuals escape to protected zones while lower-income populations, particularly in developing nations, are left exposed to the full force of the outbreak. Even in fictional zombie scenarios, the wealthy often use their resources to secure survival, while the working class is either abandoned or exploited—forced into dangerous labor or even used as bait to slow down zombie hordes. From a Marxist perspective, a zombie apocalypse wouldn’t just be about the undead—it would be about how capitalism ensures that the rich get bunkers, and the poor get bitten.

Building on dependency theory, Marxists would also argue that poorer nations would be further exploited during the apocalypse. Wealthy nations might hoard vaccines or life-saving technologies, using their economic power to extract concessions from desperate states in the Global South. In World War Z, we see glimpses of this when nations with resources become safe havens while others fall into chaos. Marxism would focus on how the global capitalist system perpetuates inequality even in the face of existential threats, as the rich and powerful continue to dominate the international order, even when zombies are at the gates.