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

One night, a while ago, I couldn’t sleep and instead got thinking about materialist analysis. I realised there were a couple of issues I had with Marxism that lay at the foundation of its theory. I went to sleep, then after waking up decided to try and find a way to solve these issues. This is my attempt at a theoretical development of dialectical and historical materialism.

Hold on—you've set up the narrative beautifully, but you haven't actually told me what your theoretical development *is*. You've given me the origin story, not the argument. Here's the thing: if you're claiming to have solved foundational problems with Marxism, you can't just say "I thought about it and fixed it." You need to show your work. What were those "couple of issues" that kept you up? What specific inadequacies in dialectical and historical materialism did you identify? And most importantly—what's your alternative framework? Right now you're asking me to defend Marxism against a shadow argument. That's not a debate; that's a staring contest. **So let's cut to it: What's the actual theoretical problem you're trying to solve, and what's your solution?** Once you put your cards on the table, I'll show you why Marxism still does the work you think requires replacing it.

MY FIRST ISSUE Hegelianism 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. MY SECOND ISSUE The Base and Superstructure Model 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? MY THIRD ISSUE Revolutionary Strategy 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.

You've laid out a serious challenge, but you're attacking Marxism for problems it actually *solves better than your framing suggests*. Let me work through each. **On Hegelianism and "Progress":** You're fighting a ghost. Marx explicitly rejected Hegelian teleology—the idea that history *inevitably* marches toward predetermined forms. He was a materialist *precisely* because he rejected that idealism. When he describes historical stages, he's not saying they're automatically better; he's describing how material conditions generate new social relations. Regression is entirely possible under Marxism—and capitalism collapsing into neo-feudalism would just mean the material contradictions of late capitalism have created those conditions. That's not a refutation; it's materialism working as advertised. Your "retrogression" isn't a problem for Marx; it's proof the theory holds. **On Base and Superstructure:** Here's where you've misread the model. Marx never claimed patriarchy, xenophobia, or ecological exploitation *originate* from economics—he said economic relations are the *foundation* of how they're *organized and reproduced*. Patriarchy predates capitalism, yes. But *capitalist patriarchy* is structurally different from feudal patriarchy because capital needs different things from gender relations. That's not a contradiction; that's the model explaining *why* oppression transforms but persists under different modes. Your real worry—"what stops these in communism?"—isn't a Marxist problem; it's a *human organization* problem. And here's the thing: Marxism gives you the *method* to analyze this. You can use historical materialism to ask *why* xenophobia persists and what material conditions reproduce it. That's infinitely more useful than abandoning the framework. **On Revolutionary Strategy:** This is your strongest point, but you've diagnosed the symptom, not the disease. You're right that "the bourgeoisie was too powerful" is unsatisfying as an *explanation*. But it's a real structural problem—and Marxism *does* have answers you're overlooking. The USSR failed partly because it tried to build socialism in material conditions that didn't support it—isolated, technologically backward, under constant imperial siege. Marx never claimed revolution was possible anywhere, anytime. He predicted it in advanced industrial societies with developed working classes. Every "Marxist" revolution happened in peasant societies, which is precisely *backwards* from what the theory predicted. That's not a failure of theory; it's a failure of application. But here's what matters: your solution can't be to *abandon* materialist analysis. That's like a doctor saying "antibiotics don't always work, so let's stop using science." What you need is *better* Marxism—analysis that accounts for *why* peripheral revolutions fail, what conditions *actually* allow socialism to develop, and how to organize differently. **So here's my challenge to you:** You've identified real problems with how Marxism was *applied*, not with materialism itself. What's your alternative framework actually *proposing*? How do you analyze society without material conditions? How do you strategize revolution without understanding class relations? Or are you just saying Marxism needs refinement—which isn't really disagreement at all?

To being: I AM A MATERIALIST. I am just arguing that Marxism is not an adequate application of materialism. It is an effective tool with which to analyse the economy, but does not explain the rest of society and history satisfactorily: that is the basis. From the issue of Hegelianism, we must develop a materialism which allows for contingent societies, rather than inevitability. From the issue of the base-superstructure model, we need a materialism that handles multiple, interacting layers of power without reducing one to being the direct result of another. From the issue of revolutionary strategy, we need to examine the recursive logic of political means. THE CORE PROPOSITION The primary unit of “social consciousness” is not the economic class. It is the designed material relation: the specific, crystallized arrangement of power, obligation, and interaction between different societal groups. For example: Under capitalism, the economic relation is that of the bourgeois-proletarian wage and labour relations; in any statist society, there is present the state-citizen legal relations. ANALYTICAL “LAYERS” To get more detailed, we can look at four distinct societal “layers” (economic, technological, ecological/biological, organisational) which interact with each other to form the whole of a set of material relations. To use patriarchy as an example: Under patriarchy there are a set of economic (gender wage gaps, occupational segregation, women’s dependance on men’s provision, division of care labour), ecological/biological (medical, sexual, and expressional control), technological (particular “tools” and technologies being associated with different genders), and organisational (authority being held by men, “public life” leaning more towards being a “masculine role” and “private life” being “feminine”, the model of “the family”) relations at play, which all intersect with and enforce each other, and can adapt quite readily to enforce and be enforced by alternate (for example) economic systems. This is, as mentioned previously, also true of other hierarchical relational forms present in society such as xenophobia (ingroup-outgroup, citizen-noncitizen), ableism (productivity-worth, able-unable, pathologisation), ecological exploitation (extractivism, human exceptionalism), ageism, etc. WHY? The core logic is that instead of analysing who has power, we should view society as a constant transference of power and study how that that power moves through specific societal circuits: recursively designed material relations. Additionally, systems (that is: organisations of society) tend towards stability, with a “stable system” here being defined as any society whose set of material relations successfully reinforce themselves until they are “designed” in such a way that they self-perpetuate. Originally, I was going to call this relational materialism, but that’s taken for something else used in educational research, so instead I’m calling this socio-relational materialism

Alright. You've actually sharpened your position considerably—you're not rejecting materialism, you're proposing a *different materialist framework*. That's intellectually honest. But I think your framework solves problems that Marxism already handles, while creating new ones you haven't reckoned with. **Your diagnosis is partially correct, but overstated.** You're right that Marxism focuses heavily on economic class. But you're wrong that it *reduces* all other oppressions to economics. Read the actual texts: Marx discusses ideology as having relative autonomy. Gramsci developed hegemony theory *as a Marxist* to explain how culture reproduces power independently of direct economic coercion. Feminist Marxists like Silvia Federici have shown how patriarchy and capitalism co-evolved and mutually reinforce each other—not because patriarchy is economic, but because they're *intertwined*. Your "four layers" aren't a refutation of Marxism; they're a development of insights already *in* Marxist theory. **But here's where socio-relational materialism breaks down:** You've replaced class with "designed material relations" as your primary unit of analysis. The problem? *Who designs?* Class doesn't disappear from your framework—it just gets hidden in the architecture. When you say patriarchy has "economic, technological, ecological, organisational" dimensions that "intersect and enforce each other," you're describing a *system*, but you haven't explained *why this particular system emerged and persists*. In Marxism, the answer is: because it's useful for capital accumulation. A woman earning half a man's wage expands the labor reserve and depresses all wages. Unpaid domestic and reproductive labor subsidizes capitalist production. These aren't accidents; they're *functional*. Your framework describes *how* patriarchy works across layers, but it doesn't explain *why capitalism chose this design over others*. You've mapped the circuits of power without explaining the engine. **On contingency and inevitability:** You claim Marxism assumes inevitable progress. But look at what actually happened: the USSR collapsed, fascism rose, revolutions failed in advanced economies and succeeded in backwards ones. If Marxism predicted inevitable progress toward communism, reality proved it wrong—yet Marxists *did* adapt and explain these contingencies through material analysis of concrete conditions. Your "contingent materialism" isn't a rejection of Marx; it's what Marxists have been doing since Lenin analyzed imperialism. **The real problem with your framework:** You've built something that can *describe* any social arrangement (patriarchy has four layers! xenophobia has four layers! ableism has four layers!). But description isn't explanation. Marxism tells you *why* these systems persist: because they're profitable, because they divide the working class, because they're encoded in production relations. Your framework tells you *how* they work together. Those aren't the same thing. Here's my challenge: **Using socio-relational materialism, explain why patriarchy persists under socialism.** Not how it transforms—*why* a post-capitalist society would maintain gender hierarchy if economic incentives no longer justify it. Because if your answer is "well, the other layers perpetuate it," you've just pushed the question back one level. Marxism says: address the economic base, the superstructure crumbles. You're saying: address all four layers equally. But that's a program for infinite work with no clear priority—and revolutionaries need to know where to *start*.

To use socio-relational materialism to analyse a particular phenomenon (if you’d like a straightforward sequence of steps: it of course can get more complex than this), ask the following: What are the dominant designed material relations present? How do they structure flows of power, obligation, and resources? How do they recursively reproduce their own conditions? Across which layers (Economic/Technological/etc) do they operate? What alternative relations could prefigure a better outcome? Also, we do not live in a socialist society: would you like me to speculate about that material reality? The steps I just outlined do allow for explanations as to "why" these relations persist. There are groups within those relations (for example men and women under patriarchy, the imperial core and the colonies under imperalism, the bourgeoisie and proletariat under capitalism) which enforce and benefit from those heirarchies.

You've tightened the framework, but you're still dancing around the core problem: **your method describes power dynamics without explaining their *origin* or their *necessity*.** Let me show you what I mean. Take your five-step analysis applied to patriarchy. You'd identify gender hierarchies, map how they flow across economic, technological, organisational layers, note that men benefit and enforce it. But here's what you *haven't* explained: **Why did patriarchy emerge in the first place?** Was it arbitrary? Could societies have developed differently? Marxism gives you an answer: patriarchy emerged when property became heritable and men needed to control women's sexuality to ensure paternity certainty—a material necessity of class society. You can trace it to *specific material conditions*. Under your framework, patriarchy is just one possible "designed relation" among infinite alternatives. But that evacuates history of causation. You're left saying "well, men benefit so they maintain it"—which is true but circular. *Of course* the beneficiaries of a system maintain it. That doesn't explain why *this* system over all others. **Your framework is too flexible to be falsifiable.** This is the real trap. With five steps that work on "any hierarchical relation," you can explain *anything after the fact*. Why did feudalism collapse? "The material relations shifted." Why did capitalism emerge? "New designed relations prefigured better outcomes." But if your method explains everything, it explains nothing—it's unfalsifiable. Marxism makes a bold claim: the economy is primary, class struggle drives history. You can test that. Prove a major revolution happened for non-economic reasons and Marxism faces a real problem. Your framework? It just absorbs every counterexample into a description of "how the layers interact." **On your socialism question:** Fine—speculate. But here's the trap you're walking into: if you say patriarchy would persist under socialism *because of the other layers*, you've admitted that dismantling capitalism alone isn't sufficient. The Marxist answer is: address the economic base (abolish private property, socialise reproductive labor), and the superstructure follows. Your answer seems to be: all four layers need simultaneous transformation with equal priority. **That's not a revolutionary program—it's a recipe for paralysis.** You can't transform everything at once. You have to start *somewhere*. Marxism says start with production relations because they're foundational. You're saying... what? That we need to redesign patriarchy, technology, ecology, and organization *simultaneously* to change anything? **Show me:** In a post-capitalist society with socialised childcare, no wage labour, and collective ownership of production, *what material incentive would men have to maintain patriarchy?* Because if you can answer that clearly, you've either admitted the Marxist base-superstructure model works, or you've found a real gap. But your framework as stated just says "the relational layers would need to be redesigned"—which is a description of what needs to happen, not an explanation of *why it would happen* or *how to make it happen*. **That's my challenge:** Give me a concrete mechanism—a material incentive, a structural necessity—for why patriarchy would persist in a post-capitalist, post-scarcity society. Not "the layers interact." *Why?*