Adopting dialectical and historical materialism as a way to understand the world is a truly sobering experience.
It forces you to stop asking only what society claims to be and start examining how society actually functions.
Capitalism tells us that hard work creates prosperity, markets create freedom, private property protects liberty, and political reform allows the system to correct its mistakes. Historical materialism, instead, asks us to look beneath those ideas at the material relationships underneath them.
Who owns?
Who works?
Who profits?
Who governs?
Who produces?
Who controls?
Who has the power to change the conditions of everyone else’s life?
As Marx highlighted in his work The German Ideology, we have to begin with the material reality of human beings and their social relations, not just ideas. Criticism in of itself cannot abolish the conditions and relations which produce certain ideas. Changing these relations requires transformation and a change in the system.
We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process… Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the sembalance of indepedence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.
The German Ideology by Karl Marx
Once you look at society in this way, it becomes harder to get drunk off of the idea, the comforting belief, that we simply need better politicians, kinder corporations, more ethical billionaires, or another round of reforms to finally make capitalism behave differently.
This realization produces fear.
It calls into question the assumption that the system just needs to be tweaked in order to get better. It calls into question capitalism as a process, a process that depends on exploitation, accumulation, class domination, crises, eco-cide, etc. It calls into question the comfort that capitalism has brought to members within the Global North.
At this point, we are no longer asking to repair capitalism. We are asking to replace it.
And that statement frightens people.
The Familiar Can Still Be Harmful
This is where I think the metaphor of an abusive relationship can be useful.
The comparison I am making is structural and metaphorical, not to trivialize actual instances of domestic abuse. However, the similarities are distinct, as harmful relationships can reproduce themselves through dependency, fear, constrained choices, uncertainty, and (most importantly) the belief that leaving might be even more dangerous than staying.
People are often more comfortable in a fucked up situation that they know than a potentially better situation that they don’t know. Furthermore, research on intimate partner violence (IPV) shines light to the fact that people stay in these situations due to material factors as well.
Leaving an abusive relationship can be extremely difficult because psychological and material factors interact. One review found that leaving involved both psychological and material conditions rather than a simple explanation. Economic abuse was also common and undermined a survivor's ability to achieve financial independence to leave their situation. Leaving for survivors was also generally dangerous, as violence after separation was common, with some instances leading to death.
Similarly to our relationship to capitalism… people make decisions within conditions of power, dependency, fear, resources, and perceived threat.
Most people cannot individually “opt out” of capitalism. We have to work. We have to pay rent or mortgages. We need food, healthcare, transportation, and shelter.
For many, it is either “work or starve”. They’re trapped by material circumstances in jobs that alienate them. They’re trapped in a violent system that exploits them, seeing no way out. The circumstances of capitalism traps them. It is as Marx said:
Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte by Karl Marx
We are simultaneously capable of changing society and constrained by the society we inherit. This is the dialectic.
We are capable of changing this dynamic, this relationship, but we are constrained by our own psychological and material conditions.
Maybe It Will Change This Time
This is where our metaphor becomes interesting…
Capitalism enters crises.
Workers suffer.
People become angry.
Politicians promise change.
Some reforms are introduced.
Some conditions improve.
The pressure decreases.
The capital reorganizes itself, political priorities shift, reforms are weakened or rolled back, inequality worsens, and eventually another crisis emerges.
Again and again, we are encouraged to believe:
Maybe this time it will be different.
Maybe this election will finally fix everything.
Maybe this corporation will be more socially responsible.
Maybe the wealth will eventually trickle down.
Maybe capitalism can continue to produce around private accumulation without destroying the planet and leading to crisis after crisis.
Just as we cannot reform an abusive partner, we cannot reform an abusive system. While we can advocate for change within a fucked up situation, the main point is to get out of that fucked up situation entirely.
We will not reform capitalism into socialism. While we can build working class strength using reform as a means, it is not the end. Similarly, we can provide survivors with resources and knowledge as a means, but that is not the end. The end is the survivor leaving the relationship entirely, the end for the working class is a break from capitalism entirely.
Without this break, we risk turning political struggle into permanent relationship counseling.
We keep asking capitalism to communicate better.
We ask it to distribute things more fairly.
To stop being so greedy.
To care more about workers.
To respect the environment.
To stop exploiting the Global South.
To stop making things like healthcare for profit.
To stop commodifying basic necessities like housing.
At some point we need to stop asking for a change in behavior and start confronting the very relationship that produces the behavior in the first place.
The System Also Teaches Us How To Think
The problem goes deeper than fear. People do not develop their understanding of capitalism outside of capitalism.
We learn about society through capitalist-owned and controlled schools, workplaces, entertainment, news organizations, political institutions, family, religion, culture, etc.
Marx argued again in The German Ideology that the “ruling ideas” of an era tend to reflect the ruling material relationships of that era. This means that the class controlling material production (like the capitalist) also possesses enormous influence over intellectual production and our understanding of the world.
Ideas do not float around untouched; they have their own material histories.
Why does private ownership of productive enterprises feel natural?
Why does selling most of our waking lives for a wage seem inevitable?
Why is it considered radical to argue that housing should not be a commodity, yet normal for someone to lose their home because they cannot generate enough income for an owner?
Why is capitalism treated as reality itself while socialism must constantly prove its right to be even considered?
Antonio Gramsci's analysis of cultural hegemony also helps deepen this understanding.
According to Gramsci, the ruling order does not maintain order through force alone. The ruling class also shapes cultural norms and values to be accepted by the majority.
It means that capitalist domination does not need everyone to enthusiastically accept capitalism. It just requires us to adopt certain views and values as common sense.
Common sense that includes working for a wage, paying your debts, competing with others, owning a business, consuming products, investing, etc.
The other ‘common sense’ interpretation occurs when the system produces suffering. We blame individuals rather than the system itself.
You didn’t work hard enough.
You chose the wrong degree.
You should have budgeted better.
You should have developed more marketable skills.
Everything becomes your fault except for the social relations that organize your life. This is incredibly powerful because a system becomes harder to challenge when its rules stop looking like made-up social relations and start looking natural.
Fear of the Unknown
This brings us back to fear.
Changing the social order is frightening. We cannot pretend otherwise.
History does not give us clean transformations in which everyone just votes for a new economic system on Monday and wakes up liberated on Tuesday. The history of revolution argues against these fantasies. The ruling class will not give up their power willingly. We can look at the example of Salvador Allende in Chile.
In Chile it was believed that the relatively old-established democratic traditions, parliament, the legal activity of political parties, the existence of a free press, etc., were an insurmountable obstacle to any reactionary force which might attempt to seize power by violence. The reality, however, proved the opposite. The coup d’état of the rightist forces proved that the bourgeoisie will tolerate certain freedoms just so long as its essential interests are not affected, but when it sees that these interests are threatened, it is no longer concerned about ethics.
The Tragic Events in Chile: A Lesson for the Revolutionaries of the Whole World by Enver Hoxha
Chile is a perfect example of how the parliamentary road to socialism, the reformist road, did not lead to socialism. As soon as Allende was elected and worked towards nationalizing industries and reforming the Chilean economy, the CIA and other reactionary forces stepped in to overthrow his government.
The political struggle towards revolution provides uncertainty. Even the ‘peaceful’ road towards socialism does not guarantee peace. The capitalists will defend their interests. Revolutions develop contradictions. Movements make mistakes. People can suffer. The point isn’t to avoid suffering, but to embrace the correct forms of struggle.
Historical materialism helps us see that transformation isn’t romantic, but can involve contradictions, struggle, strife, wins, losses, etc.
For those against transformation or the revolutionary path, I would argue that staying the same also has consequences. Capitalism is not the safe option just because it is the familiar option. The ecosystem does not care that systemic change makes us uncomfortable. A worker who cannot afford to live is not experiencing stability. A tenant facing eviction is not protected by the familiarity of capitalist property relations.
A population subjugated to imperialist wars (the Global South) does not experience the existing international order as peaceful simply because people in the imperial core experience that order as normal.
We constantly compare the dangers of revolution with an imaginary present where nothing bad is truly happening. Unless we are comfortable and used to the bad that is happening. But these are the wrong comparisons.
The question is not… Is changing capitalism dangerous?
The question should be… What are the consequences of changing it compared to the consequences of allowing its existing contradictions to continue?
This is the question we need to contend with.
This also helps explain why anti-socialist narratives can be so compelling because they’re psychologically comforting. If socialism is impossible, if socialism is dangerous, if socialism is wrong, then we have no obligation to seriously consider it.
If every socialist experiment was nothing more than tranny akin to fascism, then there is nothing to learn from its successes, failures, contradictions, and historical conditions.
If capitalism instead represented the endpoint of human development, then our political discourse and imagination can shrink to how it should be administered rather than changed. Philosopher Mark Fisher called this concept capitalist realism. It is much easier to see the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
The ruling society suddenly becomes the only conceivable society.
This is why Marx’s critique of idealism remains so important. We cannot simply take on our society's ideas about itself at face value. We should investigate the material relationships and historical conditions those ideas express.
So when we hear that capitalism equals freedom, socialism equals tyranny, markets equal human nature, and private property equals liberty… dialectical and historical materialism asks us to investigate rather than simply believe these assumptions. Just as we have to question the narratives in an abusive relationship, we cannot believe the assumptions we have about the relationship at face value.
What do the capitalists mean by freedom?
Whose freedom?
Freedom to do what?
Whose property?
Produced by whose labor?
Under what historical conditions?
Who benefits from these arrangements?
These questions let us critically analyze our situation rather than just accept it as ‘common sense’.
Marxism is Not a Promise of Perfection
Marxism matters to me because it does not merely tell us that capitalism is morally wrong. It is a method that asks us to investigate capitalism and the relations it produces itself. Marxism as a method asks how capitalism produces itself materially, how classes develop conflicting interests, how ideology stabilizes class society, and how the working class might organize power to transform these relationships.
None of this means that Marxists possess magical answers. Socialists have made mistakes. Socialist projects have had debates, contradictions, failures, internal struggles, and tragedies that deserve serious historical study rather than denial.
Dialectical and historical materialism demands that we examine those experiences too and scrutinize them with the method. Instead of handwaving them off as ‘authoritarian ’, we start to ask what the conditions were, what the class forces were, what worked, what failed, what can be learned, etc.
The goal isn’t to have this ideal version of socialism, the goal is to refuse the conclusion that the failures of previous attempts prove that humanity must remain trapped inside capitalism forever.
That would be akin to saying every failed capitalist revolution against monarchy proves that monarchy is humanity’s natural condition.
History does not work that way. Human societies change… their economies, institutions, and assumptions change.
Capitalism itself emerged from a previous social order. Dialetical materialism allows us to see this and understand this.
This is why dialetical/historical materialism has become so important to me as it forces us to sober up. It forces us to stop escaping into the intoxicating ideas that society says about itself and to actually exmine what it does.
We need to stop confusing reform with transformation.
We need to stop confusing familiarity with safety.
We need to stop confusing hope itself with strategy.
We also need to stop assuming that because the socialist alternative is uncertain, the current system of capitalism represents stability.
Without us stopping this the abusive relationship with capitalism continues.
We need to see the truth…
Power can make harmful relationships difficult to escape. Dependency matters. Fear matters. Resources matter. Ideology matters. And changing that relationship requires us to both see that the relationship is wrong and doing something about it.
But most of us know that the situation is wrong deep down. They know when their wages disappear to rent. They know when they work harder without becoming more secure. They know when politicans promise transformation and do not deliver.
They know when the richest society in the world (the USA) tells its people it somehow cannot afford housing, healthcare, education, or retirement for its people. They know when war is used to justify genocide, killing children, and bombing innocent people.
They can feel a contradiction before they possess the theory to explain it.
Marxism gives us the tools for naming the contradiction.
But naming it is only the beginning… we must act.
The goal is to transform understanding into action. Only action can lead to change.
But change will be difficult, it will contain contradiction, it will create uncertainty, but we must do it anyway.
We must break our abusive relationship with capitalism. We can do this with Marxism.
Resources and Further Reading
Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(2), 163–191.
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097.
Gramsci, A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks / writings on hegemony, civil society, and political society.
Hoxha, E. (1973, October 2). The tragic events in Chile: A lesson for the revolutionaries of the whole world. Zëri i Popullit. Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/albania/chile.html
Marx, K. (1852). The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1845–1846). The German Ideology.
Postmus, J. L., Plummer, S.-B., McMahon, S., Murshid, N. S., & Kim, M. S. (2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(3), 411–430.
"We need to stop confusing reform with transformation." So true. I am genuinely tired of politicians and many activists trying to look revolutionary while being just social democrats. I studied Sociology in college, and many classmates used revolutionary language while advocating for reforms to both academia and the government. It was frustrating because many of them also dismissed more radical actions. Now that many of us have graduated, it feels weird to see how these people, who should know how structural change actually works, try to pass their jobs in NGOs, consultancies, and government as meaningful. I am also trying to think about how not to contribute to this. I don’t know how I could build a career differently from this, but I guess building a career only makes sense in our capitalist society.
very insightful analysis and application of marxist method