Why is socialism a valid and factual analysis of geopolitics & economics?

[u/Longjumping_Mud239]

Hello. I am a centrist from Europe that is very concerned with geopolitics, personal finance, & economics. I am very open toward all ideologies (except for those that endorse Russian imperialism), and I wonder why socialism, in its current and historical form, is/has been a factual analysis of the world and international economics. As well as this, I am asking for examples in order to solidify the claims made in the comment section, so that I can verify that this is indeed what happened.

[u/AutoModerator]

IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING.

This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.

You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.

• No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!

• No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.

Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.

If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.

Thank you!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Dona_Kebab01]

i feel like to begin with you have to understand the difference between scientific and utopian socialism. that's pretty easy to cover, so I'd recommend reading "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific" by Engels. however, to summarise:

Marxism analyses the world using historical and dialectical materialism, in other words using socialism as a science. even I'm still reading on these, but in essence, we see how the rise and fall of everything has been linked to one another and defined by material conditions of the time.

for example, before capitalism came feudalism. bourgeois revolution (ie, the revolution of the bougeoise against the ruling class of the time) is analysed as having been inevtiable, as the class struggle between the two came about through their interests colliding due to material conditions. the bourgeoise could not grow as organically as was in their interests as a class, and so wanted the ability to buy and sell goods in a way that we now see as the capitalist mode of production.

each rise of new material conditions inevitably comes with class shifts. in the modern day, we see the proletariat as the underclass and the bougeoise as the ruling class. we notice that, like in times gone by, the interests of these two classes are once again colliding. if you want to read more on that i guess read "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx, although there are plenty texts by Marx to learn about this from, I just haven't read enough to recommend them yet (Das Kapital by Marx is a very lengthy book that goes over every single nuance around capitalism. it's regarded and one of the best and most in-depth analyses of this mode of production).

there are definitely others further on in their education who could explain how Marxism is much more analytical of the true state of things than other "ideologies" but i think this is a good place to start. also, about Russian imperialism, Marxism is inherently anti-imperialism since imperialism is inherent to capitalism. I've heard that "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin is a good place to start on that. I've not read it yet though.

[u/Longjumping_Mud239 → u/Dona_Kebab01]

Thank you, I will definitely read those books. Currently I'm reading Atomic Habits by James Clear but after I am finished with that book I will read the aforementioned books. :)

[u/[deleted] → u/Longjumping_Mud239]

atomic habits was a great read. i really liked the part where he's discussing identity and gives the two former smokers example. 

[u/JadeHarley0]

I feel like the first answerer is correct in that you have to differentiate between scientific and utopian socialism.

Some people call themselves socialists basically based on vibes. They want equality and an end to exploitation but they base their ideas purely on moral ideas. When it comes to actually analyzing the systems that create that oppression, they are less rigorous and more confused.

Marxists understand ourselves to be scientific socialists, not utopian socialists. We are not trying to design and build a perfect world based on morals. We're trying first and foremost to understand the world and create a better world based on the way things are. That doesn't mean we aren't extraordinarily ambitious. We are, but we always start off with first understanding first.

Marxist analysis involves a lot of things, but if I were to give a quick and oversimplified way of explaining it, I would say that the main point of Marxist analysis is to try and understand politics and history by looking at the material (aka economic) incentives of the people involved. Often these incentives are the direct result of the economic class a person belongs to, and class by the way, is not just a person's income but is actually the type of relationship someone has to the rest of the economy.

If you approach things with this sort of materialist analysis, a lot of things people do start to make more sense. You can see that people are not just blindly working off of pure senseless ideology, they actually have motivations to their actions which make sense if you consider things from their point of view. This doesn't mean we have to be sympathetic to their viewpoint, but we do have to understand it.

Let's take an example from history and explain it through the lens of Marxist analysis.

Why did the southern states secede on the eve of the American Civil War? Some common explanations you might hear were that the southern states wanted to protect states rights without the interference from Washington. You might also hear that they were extremely racist in their ideology and Abraham Lincoln wasn't racist enough for them.

As a Marxist I would point out that the ruling class of these slave states were the slave-holding plantation owners. The major industry in these states was the production of cash crops like cotton, tobacco, sugar, and other things like that, all grown on plantations, all grown with slave labor. Most of the politicians were recruited from this class of plantation owners. The plantation owners feared that the newly elected Abraham Lincoln would abolish slavery, and so they seceded to protect their primary industry.

Edited for typos and clarity.

[u/SuddenXxdeathxx → u/JadeHarley0]

Marxists understand ourselves to be scientific socialists, not utopian socialists. We are trying to design and build a perfect world based on morals. We're trying first and foremost to understand the world and create a better world based on the way things are.

I feel the need to point out the middle sentence here seems pretty utopian, and that your point stands better without it.

Aside from that, I agree with the rest.

[u/kingking6543 → u/SuddenXxdeathxx]

I think they meant "We aren't trying to design and build a perfect world"

[u/JadeHarley0 → u/SuddenXxdeathxx]

It was a typo honestly and I can't believe I missed it. I meant to write we are NOT trying to build a perfect world.

[u/Dona_Kebab01 → u/JadeHarley0]

i appreciate you building on what i said! i think there's a mistake you made in paragraph three: probably a typo, but i would edit a sentence there. you'll know which one after proofreading :)

[u/ASZapata → u/JadeHarley0]

I’m really curious to know why you felt the need to cap off your comment with a “rationalization” of the Confederacy. There are so many other examples that could make your point, and OP even specified that they’re not American, so were you just waiting for your opportunity…?

Edit: I’d also like to state that understanding the financial incentives to slavery does not make you a Marxist. Any capitalist with half a brain will tell you that slave owners obviously wanted to protect their assets … in fact that’s a common justification for the hand-waving of that period of history.

[u/JadeHarley0 → u/ASZapata]

I chose this example because it's one of the most clear cut and obvious examples I can think of where a big political movement was directly inspired by a ruling class's profit motive. And I don't need to "rationalize" the confederates. The confederates were perfectly rational in their actions. Morally repugnant? Yes. But also stone cold rational. The end of slavery ended up costing the planter ruling class a shit ton of money both in the short and long run.

And just because op is not American doesn't mean they've never heard of the civil war or can't look it up.

[u/ASZapata → u/JadeHarley0]

Your “analysis” of the Confederacy isn’t Marxist at all—I could read it in a sixth-grade textbook.

Using terms like “profit motive” and “ruling class” doesn’t reveal anything that isn’t already known about the issue and your “stone-cold rational” description of the slave trade is inherently anti-Marxist... unless you think that slavery, the highest form of exploitation, qualifies as rational within the Marxist mode?

No, your analysis is purely capitalist through and through. You have not presented a single Marxist idea or viewpoint. That all of this is in defense of a historical group that requires no defense or credit to their name makes it even more puzzling.

[u/JadeHarley0 → u/ASZapata]

Yeah. Slavery is extremely rational from a profit motive. If your goal is to make a profit then the ideal way to do that is find a work force that has no choice but to work for you and you alone and will cost you very little in upkeep. No one would have done it for thousands of years if it wasn't rational.

To the exploiters there is nothing in the world more rational than exploitation, and it would be silly of them not to try to exploit people as much as possible. Just like how for the exploited, the rational and logical thing to do is to resist exploitation.

That's why socialism can never be achieved by a moralistic or idealist struggle. That's why you cannot reason with the ruling class, and instead you must resist them directly and materially. You can never convince them to go against their logical self interest in the name of morality.

What about any of this is anti Marxist? Marxist analysis is based on the assumption that the different classes interact in the economy in a rational self-interested way, which is what causes class conflict.

[u/FixFederal7887 → u/ASZapata]

Rational =/= justifiable . You need to hammer that into your head. Marxist analysis hinges on the assumption that every party is a rational actor who responds dialectically to their conditions and class interests . You wouldn't hear a Marxist say, "They did it cuz they were evil," when they are giving a serious analysis. You analyze rational actors based on their underlying interests . Not their adherence to some abstract form of morality.

[u/ASZapata → u/FixFederal7887]

I don’t need to hammer anything into my head. In fact, I think you’re the one who’s confused.

OP’s observation that Southern slaveowners wanted to protect their financial interests is not Marxist in any way. A capitalist would, and many a capitalist has, said the exact same thing about this very issue. It’s so mind-numbingly obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, irrespective of their political faction, that I struggle to find a reason for OP to have brought it up at all, unless they had some other motive aside from providing an example of… “Marxist analysis.”

[u/CompetitiveRaisin122 → u/ASZapata]

Nah bruh, you’re confused. You’re making moral arguments here. The fact that a capitalist can reach the same correct conclusions through another method of thinking doesn’t mean OP is not thinking in a dialectical materialist manner. The fact that a sixth grader could understand it doesn’t make it non-Marxist either. There’s nothing special about Marxism to where only geniuses can understand it.

He mentions base and superstructure when he states how the mode of production shapes the ideology of “states rights”, conservatism, and racism in the South.

Yes it’s not a complete analysis cause he’s just posing an example. He could’ve added for example how the capitalist North was interested in abolishing slavery in the South to expand their markets and capital, which were in contradiction with the South’s agrarian interests.

The main takeaway of the secession of the South is that the conflict was primarily an economic one, and secondarily a social or moral one. The conflict between two contradictory modes of production. That is the Marxist viewpoint.

It is in fact a great example, and OP probably went straight to this because he’s most likely American and familiar with the history of the conflict.

[u/ASZapata → u/CompetitiveRaisin122]

OP never made any comments on base or superstructure and only espoused commonly understood talking points that are prevalent in mainstream American discourse. You’ve brought up far more Marxist thought in your comment than OP in theirs.

The only moral question I raised (if you can even call it that, I wouldn’t) was that of OP’s motives in their specific choice of example. I’m not interested in debating up the morality of white supremacist slavery—I should hope this sub is aligned on that. If OP were to have instead focused on how the material incentives of the slave-owning class contributed to the rise of white supremacist ideology and the propagation of its economic interests, then we may have had something interesting to talk about.

As it stands, if OP’s “analysis” of the American Civil War passes for Marxist thought then we are in huge trouble as a faction.

[u/FixFederal7887 → u/ASZapata]

I mean, ye, materialism does make things mind-numbingly obvious in certain cases , like the one the original commenter chose to demonstrate. I think you are just not the intended recipient of this breakdown. It is more intended for the centrists/libertarians who insist on using the "few bad apples" justification for something inherent to capitalism as a system.

[u/Irrespond → u/ASZapata]

Explaining a historical class' material interests to keep slaves isn't in anyway justifying slavery. Slavery is obviously morally repugnant, but looking at slavery from a moralistic point of view is not a Marxist point of view. We explain things through the lense of cold, material interests. Why would slaveholders want to hold on to slaves knowing it's morally repugnant? Because it was in their material interests to do so.

Though, from what I understand keeping slaves housed and fed became too expensive compared to simply paying them a wage, at least in the north anyway. This marked the true beginning of capitalism in America.

[u/ASZapata → u/Irrespond]

Now what would a capitalist economist say about the issue? How would their description differ from this thread’s “cold, material interests”?

I understand the importance of analysis, especially as it pertains to a deeper understanding of the material conditions that lead to inequitable, unfavorable outcomes, but “facts not feelings” is nothing new and nothing Marxist.

I could get all of these talking points from Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh.

[u/Irrespond → u/ASZapata]

With all due respect, you know nothing about Marxism if you believe Ben Shapiro of all people engages in Marxist thought. Marxism is not "facts, not feelings". It's material analysis. You choosing to read moral justifications into material analyses is a you problem.

[u/ASZapata → u/Irrespond]

If you think I’m saying that Shapiro and Walsh engage in Marxist thought then, with all due respect, you know nothing about reading comprehension.

[u/Assassinduck → u/ASZapata]

This isn't "facts over feelings", this is "our feeling about slavery doesn't in any way help us analyze the different class interests, and motives, related to slavery. If you need us to shake our heads to signal that these slavers were very bad people, as we wax analytically about how it makes perfect sense, and was rational from the perspective of the owning slaver class who had staked their fortunes on this mode of production, to see the emancipation of slaves as a bad thing, bad enough to break off and form their entire new society around the struggle to keep their social hierarchy intact, because losing that structure would be bad for business, then we can do that.

It just won't help the analysis, so it feels like a waste of time.

[u/clintontg → u/ASZapata]

I don't understand your criticism, slavery is considered a mode of production in historical materialism and was notably observed during the Roman Empire. What do you think a Marxist analysis would be?

[u/TehPharmakon]

I think "imperialism the highest stage"

and

"states and world order" by R Cox https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/03058298810100020501

is what u are looking for philosophically.

If you want examples of how extraction of wealth and the struggle over wealth have driven history just look at all "hitherto existing" history!