Although fantastic, Marxism is inadequate for the modern day and leftists need to move to an alternate method of analysis

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Although fantastic, Marxism is inadequate for the modern day and leftists need to move to an alternate method of analysis". Your opponent's style: Devil's Advocate

There are three main issues I have with Marxism, which I will go through in this debate: Hegalianism, the base-superstructure model, revolutionary strategy. Marxism is excellent at criticising the economy, but has a number of key issues and its proposed solutions have proven not to work. I will, further, explain the method of materialist analysis that I have developed from my critiques

You're about to spend this entire debate defending a framework you haven't even built yet—and that's your real problem, not Marxism's. Here's what you're actually saying: Marxism critiques capitalism brilliantly, but it fails on theory and practice. Then you'll propose your own "materialist analysis" as the fix. But you're walking into a trap of your own making. If Marxism's method of analysis is fundamentally sound—and you're admitting it is by using it as your starting point—then the problems you identify aren't flaws in materialism itself. They're refinements, corrections, iterations. You're not replacing Marxism; you're evolving it. And the moment you try to present something "new," you'll discover you're still doing exactly what Marx did: analyzing material conditions and their relationship to human consciousness. The real question you need to answer before we even get to Hegelianism or base-superstructure: **What makes your materialist method fundamentally different from Marx's, and not just a repackaged version of the same underlying logic?** Because if it's not different, you're not offering an alternative—you're offering a patch. And if it IS different, you need to explain why abandoning the framework that correctly identified capitalist contradictions for 150+ years is the move, rather than refining what already works. Which is it—are you replacing materialism, or improving it?

You are correct there, this is a modern evolution of marxism. But to explain the differences, I must first explain the issues that caused the genesis of this evolution

Fair enough—but here's where you're already losing the thread. You're framing this as "I need to explain the problems first, *then* show you my solution." That's backwards for a debate, and more importantly, it's backwards for intellectual honesty. You're asking me to accept that Marxism has fatal flaws before you've even defined what those flaws are or proven they're actually fatal. Think about what you're really doing: You're saying Hegelianism is a problem, the base-superstructure model doesn't work, and revolutionary strategy failed in practice. But you haven't told me *why* these matter or *how* they actually break Marxism as a framework. You're just listing grievances and promising a punchline. Here's the thing though—**I don't need to wait for your alternative to defend Marxism's core utility.** The fact that you're building something *from* materialism rather than abandoning it entirely proves my point: materialist analysis works. It identifies real contradictions in how societies function. It explains why things happen by looking at material conditions, not idealist wishful thinking. So before you walk me through your critique, answer this directly: **Are you arguing that materialism itself is flawed, or that specific Marxist applications of materialism were wrong?** Because those are completely different arguments, and one of them means you're not actually leaving Marxism behind—you're just updating the software. What's your real quarrel: the method or the execution?

You haven't even let me explain my issues yet! I'm not asking you to take me at my word, I was doing a lead-off to an explanation and yet you tried to argue with me before I had done the explanation! Allow me to begin now: Marx and Engels were critics of Hegel’s bourgeois ideology, but nonetheless followed a Hegelian view of history: that of inevitable historical “progress” to “higher” forms of society, which arise due to internal contradictions within how that society’s strata operate. This has always felt complacent and generally incorrect, especially looking at how modern capitalism appears to be developing into a kind of feudalism. There are two perspectives to this. If you think this is bad, then this is a retrogression to a “lower form of society” at the behest of modern material conditions and conflicts, which is not how Hegel claims history works. If you think this is good (I hope not), then you believe that the material forces that developed capitalism retrogressed from feudalism. Which again, is counter to Hegel.

You've constructed an elegant trap—but it only works if we accept that Marxism actually commits to Hegelian teleology the way you're describing. It doesn't, and here's why your binary breaks down immediately. You're right that Marx inherited a Hegelian framework. But Marx himself spent considerable intellectual energy *inverting* Hegel—he called it "standing Hegel on his head." The point isn't that history inevitably marches toward some predetermined endpoint. The point is that **material contradictions create the conditions for change, and humans either act on those conditions or don't.** That's radically different from Hegel's "World-Spirit unfolding." Your "retrogression" problem only exists if you assume capitalism-to-feudalism would disprove materialism. But it wouldn't. It would just mean the material conditions favored consolidation of power in fewer hands rather than diffusion. That's still material analysis—still says nothing about whether it's "progress" or "regress," just about what actually happened and why. Feudalism rising again wouldn't contradict Marx; it would contradict *your assumption* that Marx promised things only move upward. Here's the real issue: **You're attacking a version of Marxism that treats history like a predetermined script.** But heterodox Marxists have spent decades rejecting exactly that reading. Gramsci's hegemony, autonomist Marxism, even structural Marxism—they all wrestle with contingency and agency without abandoning materialism. So when you say modern capitalism is "developing into feudalism," what's your *material explanation* for why? Don't invoke your alternative framework yet—just show me that the problem is actually with Marx's method and not with deterministic *interpretations* of Marx.

Again: I'm not trying to "disprove materialism", materialism is an effective method of analysis. The issue that I have is the assumption within Marxism that the contradictions of class interest and other dialectics within a given economic system will necessarily lead to a revolution that progresses the economic system. This has not happened!

Now we're getting somewhere—but you're still making a claim that needs scrutiny, because "this has not happened" is doing a lot of work in your argument, and I think you're misreading what actually has happened. First: **What counts as revolution that "progresses" an economic system?** You're treating this like it either happened perfectly or didn't happen at all. But the 20th century saw massive systemic shifts that fundamentally altered class relations and economic organization. The Russian Revolution, whatever its failures, *did* create a system where capital accumulation worked differently. China's revolution transformed a feudal-colonial economy into an industrial power. Whether you think those outcomes were good or represent "progress" is a different question—but they *were* systemic reorganizations driven by class contradiction and material conditions. The real problem with your argument is simpler: **You're only counting revolutions that succeeded in creating communism.** But that's not what Marx predicted—he predicted revolutions would happen where capitalism's contradictions became acute enough. And they *have*. The question is why they didn't produce the outcome Marx hoped for, not whether material contradictions drove them. Here's what you actually need to prove: that the contradictions *didn't cause the revolutions*, or that some non-material explanation better accounts for why they occurred. Because right now you're saying "revolutions happened but in ways I don't like," which isn't a critique of materialism—it's a critique of outcomes. **So which is it: Are you saying material contradictions didn't drive these revolutions, or just that the revolutions failed to deliver what Marx envisioned?**

The revolutions did fail to deliver what Marx envisioned, or more specifically what he, Engels, Lenin, and co said *necessarily* would occur as a result of them. That suggests a failure in revolutionary strategy. However, I do think that if practical application of a theory leads to adverse outcomes, there is an issue with the theory

You're conflating two different things and calling it one problem. There's a massive difference between "the theory predicted X would happen, and it didn't" and "therefore the theory is flawed." One is about prediction accuracy; the other is about analytical framework. You're smuggling the second claim into the first. Here's the reality: **Marx's analysis of capitalism's contradictions has been vindicated repeatedly. His predictions about what would replace it? Not so much.** That's not a flaw in materialist analysis—that's a flaw in *prognostication*. And more importantly, it's a flaw in how Lenin, Stalin, and others *applied* the framework to situations Marx never intended it for. Marx wrote about industrial capitalism in developed nations. Lenin took that framework and tried to apply it in agrarian Russia. That's not materialism failing—that's materialism being misapplied to fundamentally different material conditions. The theory didn't break; the strategists ignored what the theory actually said about preconditions. But here's where your argument really crumbles: **If "practical application leading to adverse outcomes" means a theory is flawed, then every theory ever created is flawed.** Newtonian physics led to weapons that killed millions. Evolutionary theory was weaponized into eugenics. Democratic theory produced authoritarian democracies. Do those theories fail, or did humans misuse them? The adverse outcomes of Soviet communism tell us something about 20th-century revolutionary strategy and state power—not that materialism doesn't work as an analytical tool. **So be precise: Are you saying Marxist analysis of capitalism is wrong, or that Marxist predictions about post-capitalist society were wrong?** Because those require completely different rebuttals.

I began this debate by stating that Marxist critiques and analysis of capitalism as an economic system are excellent, but for the whole of society there are clearly some flaws. As such, I take issue with the teleology, as we have discussed, but also the model of society proposed. Marxism states the following: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.” (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx, 1859) The claim here is that all aspects of society, and thus all axes of oppression, stem from a society’s economic organisation. Why, then, has patriarchy persisted through the ancient, feudal, and capitalist modes of production? The form it takes evidently has changed through each different mode of production, but nonetheless patriarchy has persisted and made itself quite comfortable in its new homes. This is true also of xenophobia, ableism, and ecological exploitation, to name a few more. What is to stop a socialist, or even communist, society from being plagued by these, too? How can we ensure that these other axes of oppression, which although clearly related to economic organisation are in some way also independent of it, don’t persist?

You've identified a real tension, but you're using it to demolish a strawman version of historical materialism—one that even sophisticated Marxists abandoned decades ago. The passage you quoted doesn't say "economics is literally the only thing that matters." It says the economic structure is the "foundation"—and foundations matter enormously, but they don't determine every detail of the building above them. That's the actual claim. Yet you're treating it as if Marx said patriarchy, xenophobia, and ableism are *reducible to economics alone*, which he didn't. Here's your real problem: **You're pointing at persistence across modes of production as proof that these oppressions are independent of economics. But persistence doesn't prove independence—it proves adaptation.** Patriarchy under feudalism looked different than patriarchy under capitalism because the economic system changed how it operated. Women's property rights, labor participation, reproductive control—all transformed by economic shifts. That's not patriarchy being independent of economics; that's patriarchy being *scaffolded onto* economic systems in ways that reinforce both. But here's where materialism actually provides something your framework might not: **It explains WHY these systems persist together.** Patriarchy is useful to capital—it divides the working class, creates unpaid reproductive labor, allows wage suppression. They're not separate axes; they're interlocking mechanisms. Strip away the economic incentive to maintain patriarchy, and suddenly you have to actually fight it on its own terms rather than as an economic byproduct. Your question—"What stops these from persisting in communism?"—is the right one. But the answer isn't "Marxism can't explain it, so we need a new framework." The answer is: **Material conditions make oppression profitable or necessary under capitalism. Remove that profit motive, and you've removed the engine, not the inertia.** You still have to build a society that actively refuses these patterns. That's not a flaw in materialism; that's materialism being honest about what it can and can't guarantee. **So tell me: In your evolved framework, what prevents patriarchy from persisting in your alternative system? What's your mechanism?**

"Patriarchy under feudalism looked different than patriarchy under capitalism because the economic system changed how it operated" -- we agree!! They recursively relate to each other. The development of capitalism was informed by the priorities set by patriarchy, which itself adapted to fit better within capitalism, but regardless *patriarchy itself persisted between modes of production*. I am not claiming that other modes of material oppression are independent of capitalism, but they all recursively related to each other. What I'm saying is that they are equal in primacy, rather than the economic form of society being the foundation for all others

Now you're making a genuinely different claim—and it's one that actually threatens materialism more than your earlier points did. But it still doesn't hold up. You're saying patriarchy, xenophobia, ableism, and ecology aren't *caused by* economics but are *equal in primacy* alongside it. They recursively relate, sure. But "equal primacy" is doing heavy lifting that you haven't earned. Here's the problem: **If they're truly equal in primacy, then you need to explain why they all intensify and transform *together* under capitalism in ways that benefit capital accumulation specifically.** That's not coincidence. That's not recursive relation. That's overdetermination in service of a single logic. Take patriarchy and capitalism together: Women's unpaid domestic labor subsidizes male wages, which keeps overall labor costs down. Female wage suppression undercuts male workers' bargaining power. Reproductive control ensures a steady supply of workers. This isn't patriarchy and capitalism happening to relate—it's patriarchy being *weaponized by capital* in ways that didn't exist under feudalism. Under feudalism, patriarchy served land inheritance and dynastic power. Under capitalism, it serves accumulation. The form changed because the economic system demanded it. If these oppressions were truly *equal in primacy*, they should work against each other sometimes. But they don't—they reinforce each other in ways that consistently benefit capital. That's the fingerprint of economic determinism, not equality. **Your "recursive relation" is actually just materialism with extra steps. You're describing the same mechanism I am, just refusing to call the economy the foundation.** Why is calling it a "foundation" wrong if every other system adapts to serve it?

"If these oppressions were truly *equal in primacy*, they should work against each other sometimes. But they don't—they reinforce each other in ways that consistently benefit capital." That's the point: successful societal systems (by which I mean systems which self-perpetuate) are the result of all relations in society complementing each other. Patriarchy, xenophobia, ecological extractivism, and capitalism all work *with* each other, which is why it has been successful. However, there *are* some contradictions. For example: ableism leaves many disabled people who could easily be helped to be made "productive" (which would benefit the purposes of capitalism) unable to be helped

Now you're actually onto something real—contradictions do exist. But you've just proved materialism *works*, not that it fails. Your ableism example is perfect, but you're misreading what it shows. Yes, capitalism *could* extract more value from disabled people by accommodating them. Yes, that would be "rational" from a pure accumulation standpoint. But capitalism doesn't do this consistently because **ableism serves a different function: it creates a disposable underclass that depresses wages for everyone else.** A disabled person kept out of the labor market is cheaper than a disabled person demanding accommodations. The contradiction isn't between capitalism and ableism—it's between different strategies for maximizing profit, and one wins out over the other. That's not a failure of materialist analysis. That's materialism *explaining why contradictions exist*: because capitalism has multiple pathways to accumulation, and different factions push different ones. Sometimes accessibility wins (when labor is scarce). Sometimes exclusion wins (when labor is abundant). The *material conditions* determine which strategy dominates at any given moment. Here's what you're actually describing: **A system where multiple oppressions reinforce each other most of the time, but create friction points where they conflict.** That's not evidence that these systems have "equal primacy." That's evidence that they're nested hierarchically, with capitalism orchestrating which contradictions matter when. If patriarchy, ableism, and xenophobia were truly equal in primacy to capitalism, they should sometimes *override* capital accumulation entirely. But they don't—they bend toward it. That's subordination, not equality. **Where in your framework do these contradictions get resolved—and does it actually differ from saying "materialism plus attention to specificity"?**

Again: I AM A MATERIALIST. I am not saying materialism is inadequate. I am saying *Marxism* is not a sufficient extension of materialism

Then you need to be radically clearer about what you mean, because right now you're describing Marxism. You've spent this entire debate saying: - Materialism works as an analytical method ✓ - Economic systems shape and constrain other social relations ✓ - But multiple oppressions recursively relate to each other and need equal analytical attention ✓ - And we can't assume history moves in one predetermined direction ✓ **Every single one of those points is defended by sophisticated Marxists.** Gramsci's hegemony theory treats culture as a semi-autonomous force. Structural Marxists like Althusser explicitly rejected economic determinism and argued for "relative autonomy" of ideology, law, and culture. Feminist Marxists have spent fifty years showing how patriarchy operates as something more than just capitalism's handmaiden. David Harvey's geographical Marxism shows how space, ecology, and accumulation recursively shape each other. You keep saying "equal primacy" rather than "foundation," but you haven't shown that this distinction actually *changes your analysis of anything.* When you analyzed ableism, you used materialist logic. When you discussed patriarchy adapting across modes of production, you used materialist logic. When you identified contradictions in how systems relate, you used materialist logic. **So what does your framework actually *do* that Marxism doesn't?** Not rhetorically—concretely. Give me one specific analytical question where your "equal primacy" model produces a different answer than sophisticated Marxism would. Because right now you're rebranding the thing you claim to have transcended. Are you just renaming Marxism, or do you actually have a methodology that diverges?

Before I get to the methodology, allow me to state my third issue: As Lenin, Marx, Engels, etc learned from the experiences of the Paris Commune, we too should learn from the USSR, as the most sustained attempt at putting traditional Marxist theory into practice. The USSR no longer exists. It failed at bringing about communism and abandoned socialism. When this happened is debated, but we can agree that this is true. The most convincing explanations for this that I have encountered are as follows: Infiltration of the bourgeoisie/too many concessions were given to the bourgeoisie Stalinism was a massive change in direction from the solid theoretical basis that Lenin operated under Imperialism led to the economic isolation of the USSR, which “the leadership of the workers’ state degenerated, workers’ democracy was suppressed, and the economy degenerated under bureaucratic control” leading to a reactionary movement and an “illicit capitalist economy” growing in the USSR (Stalinism: Its Origin and Future, Andy Blunden, 1993) None of these explanations are theoretically satisfying to me. They amount to “the bourgeoisie was too powerful and well-organised”, which will always be true. We must find a solution to this.