The socialist tradition has often been linked to materialism, an idea that has faced criticism over recent years. However, materialism serves as a valid and essential basis for progressive political ideologies.

The following article is

reprinted

from
Catalyst: A Magazine of Theory and Strategy
, a release from the Foundation. At present,

you can subscribe

into the printed version of
Catalyst
for just $20.

For many years, Marxism and the broader socialist tradition—which includes Marxism—have been linked to a concept called materialism. However, over time, this perspective has mostly fallen out of favor among critical theorists, so much so that discussing it often invites doubt or mockery. This piece offers an overview of what materialism involves before looking into several typical critiques aimed at the theory. It argues that these criticisms are largely unwarranted and suggests that adhering to classical materialism remains both feasible and essential for rejuvenating leftist political movements.

To solidify our ideas, let’s observe that materialism can be comprehended in three different ways. The first one is an
ontological
or metaphysical materialism. This is the view that reality exists independently of our minds, which is true of the natural world as well as the social world. This is in contrast to what is sometimes called idealism, which supposes that what we take to be real might just be a product of our imaginations.

The second is an
epistemological
materialism, which is the view that, even though ideas mediate our access to reality, the structure of reality imposes limits on the variability of our impressions of the world. This means that although we might have mistaken understandings of what is “out there,” there is a means to correct them through engagement with the world around us. Hence, an approximately accurate knowledge of reality is possible.

And the third is
social
Materialism refers to the perspective where significant societal phenomena are elucidated through the lens of individuals pursuing their tangible objectives—in essence, their financial or economic incentives. Consequently, within this document, social materialism denotes an approach that interprets human behavior based on these self-interest-driven motivations.

These three elements come together in a coherent framework that asserts an objective reality, which can be apprehended through careful analysis and thereby changed through practical intervention that mobilizes people around their interests. For over one hundred years, Marxists abided by all three of these arguments. This was because, as a political theory, Marxism was proximally motivated by the third — social materialism. To abide by social materialism requires that you also commit to its ontological and epistemological presuppositions. You cannot believe that agents are motivated by their objective interests unless you believe that those interests, and the agents that are motivated by them, are really “out there” in the world, and neither can you insist that you understand their interests unless you believe that it is possible for theories to actually apprehend the world.


The apparently radical shift in contemporary social theory mostly dismisses the notions that it’s feasible to precisely comprehend the world and that individuals possess shared material interests.

The seemingly radical shift in contemporary social theory mostly dismisses two key aspects of classical materialism — the assertions that an accurate comprehension of the world is attainable and that individuals possess shared material interests. These were central tenets of traditional thought.
cultural turn
, leading to epistemological relativism (by dismissing thesis two) and cultural relativism (when rejecting thesis three). It is uncontroversial to assert that there has been a significant inclination towards pervasive epistemological and cultural relativism due to the impact of poststructuralism and its subsequent development into postcolonial theory. Both these theories form the foundation for the shift towards focusing on culture.

What I want to do here is focus on the third component, social materialism, and offer a defense against some of the criticisms it has encountered in order to show that many critics’ worries, quite a few of which are entirely legitimate, can be accommodated if the theory is understood properly. More to the point, I will suggest that a genuinely egalitarian and democratic politics is not only possible to achieve through materialist theory but depends on it. There is good reason that socialists based their social theory as well as their practice on materialism. The turn away from it is but one of the many symptoms of the general intellectual decay that has accompanied the decline of the Left.

1. What Is Social Materialism?

Social materialism itself has two components — macro and micro. The macro component is the view that history is governed by technological development. This is the claim that Karl Marx propounded in his preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and G. A. Cohen brilliantly elaborated in his classic Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence.

Marx posited that history unfolds according to laws determined by the advancing evolution of productive capacities. Social structures adapt accordingly to align with these progressing productive capabilities. Ideologies and beliefs serve as secondary elements, subordinate to the prevailing production relationships—specifically, class dynamics—that dominate during those periods; such dynamics can be traced back to the current state of productive capacities. This perspective has recently faced considerable critique. Personally, I’ve found this view somewhat unlikely, yet it long remained unchallenged among Marxist circles as a prime example of materialist thought.

The second type of social materialism zeroes in on the individual scale. This perspective delves into what drives agents within social exchanges. At its core, it asserts that during certain social connections, individuals prioritize advancing their financial or economic goals, often at the expense of other obligations. Such scenarios predominantly occur in commercial dealings and political activities. Given that these elements play crucial roles in class dynamics, this implies that actions rooted in one’s class position fundamentally stem from concerns over material benefits.


When attempting to elucidate actors’ decisions regarding economic and political matters, Marxists depend on the assumption that individuals typically choose actions that enhance their material welfare.

When attempting to elucidate actors’ decisions regarding economics and politics, Marxists posit that individuals typically seek paths that enhance their financial welfare. Consequently, these actors could be perceived as rational entities. Herein, rational behavior refers to actions taken to protect personal assets. The specific behaviors are shaped by an actor’s position within societal classes; essentially, the influence of the class system compels agents to act rationally with respect to maintaining their economic stakes.

It’s straightforward to observe how this concept leads to both a political economy of capitalism and a theory of class struggle. Within the class system inherent to capitalism, a select few individuals assume the role of capitalist producers, whereas the overwhelming majority become wage laborers. This division compels those occupying these roles to adopt specific strategies to safeguard their material interests. To protect themselves, workers often feel compelled to sell their labor to capitalists since they perceive no viable alternatives. While they do retain the liberty to decline such arrangements — as no one mandates daily attendance at work — practical considerations typically drive them towards compliance.

Thus, it is accurate to assert, as libertarians do, that employees voluntarily choose to work. However, although no one compels them to labor for capitalists, their situations pressure them into seeking jobs. Consequently, despite the lack of direct coercion, they feel obligated to work due to structural pressures. They make this choice rationally because rejecting employment could result in severe consequences for their financial stability.

On the flip side, actors who become capitalists soon realize that their personal financial stakes are closely tied to the economic prosperity of their businesses. To maintain their advantageous positions, they must ensure the sustainability of their ventures amidst competition from others. This inevitably leads to the necessity of reducing expenses and boosting revenues. Insofar as they function within competitive market environments, capitalist entities universally prioritize cutting costs and increasing profits above all else. They pursue these goals logically to sustain their economic stability.

The global push to increase profitability leads to what Marx referred to as capitalism’s “laws of motion.” Decisions made at an individual level accumulate into broader trends of economic growth. Since business owners under capitalism tend to react in comparable ways when faced with analogous financial circumstances, it becomes feasible to develop theories about the overall economy. The field of political economics can exist as a legitimate discipline solely due to the predictability in how individuals act within specific economic contexts. This predictability cannot be accounted for without assuming some degree of rational behavior from these entities.

Hence, the materialistic assumption leads to a framework for understanding capitalist progress. It also forms the basis of Marxist political thought. Even as safeguarding material benefits gathers economic participants into a consistent trajectory of growth, it simultaneously incites opposition and discord. The compulsions driving bosses to minimize expenses equally push them towards diminishing the living standards of their workforce directly.


Despite the fact that safeguarding material interests leads economic players to converge into a consistent trajectory of growth, this process simultaneously sparks opposition and discord.

Companies’ efforts to cut expenses and maximize productivity inevitably cause some level of damage to workers. Cost reduction often means keeping salaries as low as current market trends permit, whereas maximizing output frequently involves increasing workload intensity, leading to both physical and mental strain among staff members. However, since employees prioritize their welfare, such measures generally provoke opposition against management requests. To mitigate the adverse effects imposed by employers pursuing higher gains, wage earners employ various strategies to protect themselves.

To put it differently, capitalism’s relentless pursuit of profit triggers widespread opposition from working people. This universality extends beyond just the existence of such resistance; it also encompasses the nature of this resistance itself. Throughout history, workers have experienced various cultural contexts yet shared similar fundamental concerns about improving pay, reducing working hours, lessening workload intensity, enhancing healthcare benefits, among others. Regardless of differing ideologies and cultures, each significant labor movement has centered around these common objectives. Such consistency defies explanation within a relativist perspective. Hence, both the global push driven by capitalist expansion and the consistent backlash against it can be understood solely through the lens of rational behavior.

2. The Benefits of Materialism

The idea of materialism has led to one of the most effective social theories in contemporary times. From this concept emerged the foundational strategies for the most influential political movement of our time: the labor class movement, with an emphasis on its socialist aspect. It would not be an overstatement to assert that modern socialism’s strategic direction placed significant importance on material benefits. This was notably apparent across three key elements that characterize today’s progressive movements.

  • Political program: First, the materialist theory has been the foundation for socialist strategy. All political programs were based on an analysis of people’s interests. These programs rested on two questions. The first was which group of people comprised the party’s constituency. That constituency, the working class, was not defined by virtue of its attitudes or the values that it held at any particular moment but on an assessment of its objective interests. Political alignments were predicted on the basis of interests, not on attitudes or normative orientations. Indeed, if the attitudes of class members happened to diverge from their interests, it never deterred parties from trying to organize them. The goal was to work with the constituency so that its attitudes could be brought into line with its interests.The second question was which political demands would be attractive to the constituency. The instrument by which the constituency would be brought together as a class was the political program. And the program was a set of demands that organizers took to be attractive to workers precisely because those demands would align with workers’ interests. Cadre were instructed to rely on the program to recruit workers to the cause, not through simple exhortation but on the strength of the program’s promises. The causal direction proceeded thus: The starting point was an analysis of the interests of the social classes; from that flowed the demands embedded in the program; and from that issued the strategy of whom to organize and how to bring them into the party. In other words, parties did not randomly try to recruit people based on the moral attractiveness of their goals. Of course, there was always a moral component to their organizing, and if it happened that certain individuals in other classes found their goals attractive, they might be invited to join the organization. But the prime constituency was always identified on the basis of actors’ interests, not their values. Socialists never walked into corporate boardrooms and tried to convince their members of the moral value of the movement. They directed their energies to workers, because they were convinced that workers’ interests would incline them toward socialist ends, while denizens of the C-suite would line up against them. The analysis of interests thus delimited the range of actors who were viewed as the socialist constituency and, likewise, those viewed as class enemies.
  • The second aspect of materialism is frequently overlooked yet remains fundamentally important. When one begins from the perspective that individuals act logically within their socio-economic and political environments, this compels us to regard these individuals with due respect. We must adopt the viewpoint that when we encounter actions we do not fully comprehend, it is sensible to presume our comprehension of their conditions has fallen short. Actions that initially seem unreasonable may become considerably clearer upon gaining a deeper insight into both the limitations and inclinations influencing those involved.
    In essence, rather than presuming such behavior stems from ideological deception, manipulation, or ingrained detrimental viewpoints, we ought to consider these individuals as rational beings who grasp their own situations reasonably well. Our task then shifts towards discerning precisely why specific choices appeal to them under their current circumstances. This approach embodies a deeply democratic principle. Furthermore, it serves as protection against elitist attitudes prevalent among many segments of the left today, wherein working-class populations are oftentimes criticized for harboring misguided views or holding onto counterproductive beliefs.
  • Thirdly, materialism laid the groundwork for what we refer to as internationalism. It posits that individuals across the globe—not merely white Europeans or Christians—oppose oppression and exploitation based on shared fundamental interests derived from universal core needs. Consequently, these principles apply irrespective of race or religion; whether one identifies as white, black, brown, or yellow, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Jewish—all those positioned similarly within societal structures can unite under common causes. Thus, this belief facilitated collaboration among various cultural groups with differing social origins towards objectives advantageous to their collective well-being—a stark contrast to the relativistic tendencies leading to fragmented nationalism prevalent amongst contemporary progressive movements.

These constituted the three key elements of leftist strategy throughout much of the twentieth century. Their prominence persisted due to the fact that, as long as the movement maintained a substantial following among the populace, activists discovered that adhering to materialist principles yielded significant benefits. Labor-oriented political parties successfully established strong foundations within the working class globally through policies that shared striking similarities. Strategies focused on advocating for universally recognized rights and common human requirements proved adaptable across various cultural and economic landscapes since these concepts connected deeply with workers worldwide. Materialism served as the guiding principle behind some of history’s longest-lasting and most effective social movements.

Certainly, it’s plausible that the achievement of this movement had little to do with the contemporary leftist theoretical framework. Although improbable, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the movement thrived despite the theory rather than due to it. Consequently, critiques like those I’ll explore next cannot simply be disregarded offhand, particularly since these perspectives remain prevalent, sometimes dominant, within scholarly circles today. Nonetheless, the significant impact of materialist theory on both politics and organization must serve as an impetus for critics to reconsider their foundational objections.

3. Shifting Towards Cultural Focus

The shift away from materialism towards culture may be considered the key feature of radical scholarship throughout the neoliberal period. This pivot stems primarily from concerns that, when explaining the mechanisms of capitalism, Marxism disproportionately downplays or marginalizes aspects such as ideology, discourse, social interpretation, and similar elements — which typically come under the broader category of culture.


The shift away from materialism and towards culture is possibly the key characteristic of radical scholarship throughout the neoliberal period.

These concerns emerged prominently in Western Europe during the early post-war period, partly driven by the Frankfurt School but also by the British New Left. The primary impetus for their critique stemmed from observing how history contradicted Marx’s belief in the working class’s potential to act as a revolutionary force. Indeed, throughout the first three decades of the century, developments appeared consistent with Marx’s forecasts. From the 1905 Russian Revolution through the Spanish Civil War, capitalism indeed looked like it might be entering into a revolutionary upheaval—the rise of the labor movement coincided closely with its effective challenge against the bourgeoisie. It certainly seemed at this time that the working class would fulfill its role as “capitalism’s gravedigger,” as stated in the Communist Manifesto.

However, within the first ten years following World War II, it appeared that the revolutionary wave had subsided. In nations where capitalism was at its peak—where one would expect Marx’s forecast about the downfall of this economic model to hold true—the reality turned out quite differently. The working class became integrated into the capitalist framework, leading to a notable decrease in the radical spirit characteristic of early 20th-century labor movements. This transformation posed a significant conundrum for those on the political left during the post-war era. As they sought answers, these thinkers concluded that although Marx accurately highlighted how class dynamics fuel conflicts, he erred in underestimating the influence of ideology and culture on workers’ readiness to revolt, their comprehension of societal conditions, and their capacity to unite collectively against systemic injustices.

The postwar leftist perspective began with an insight into sociology — recognizing that understanding class dynamics requires acknowledging how culture shapes perceptions of one’s position within the class system. They further posited that class structures do not solely or predictably determine specific strategies. From this, they deduced a concept of agency: since cultural factors render economic and political decisions uncertain, they introduce significant unpredictability into these areas.

For the rising New Left, the insight that political and economic actions are shaped through ideological filters gradually resulted in an entirely novel conception of individual agency at the grassroots level. While Marxist thinkers maintained that the class system produced consistent and unchanging decisions from individuals driven by economics, cultural theorists argued that cultural intermediation shattered any steady link between societal structures and human behavior. Consequently, the notion of a cohesive class strategy grounded in fixed class interests disintegrated as well. Reality became fluid rather than predetermined, with interests varying according to cultural contexts, and politics shifted towards forging shared identities instead of merely expressing established interests.

The irony lies in the fact that this rapid embrace of social constructivism peaked precisely when capitalism’s relentless expansion began sweeping through global societies. As the unwavering and singular principles of the economic framework increasingly dictated behavior among societal actors, theoretical discourse turned towards concepts of contingency and local contexts — mirroring how the rigid power of capitalist dynamics was subjugating various cultures and communities worldwide.


The adoption of cultural expressions reflected deep pessimism within the intellectual community regarding political transformation.

Many observers have pointed out a link between these two developments — the societal backdrop and what an early critique termed “a descent into discourse.” It represented the ideological manifestation of significant defeats suffered by mass movements globally following the 1970s. By focusing on culture, intellectuals displayed deep-seated skepticism about achieving political transformation. However, this shift also captured genuine shifts within capitalist structures. With traditional unifying forces like labor unions weakening, individuals within capitalism gravitated towards various organizing mechanisms and institutions aimed at shielding themselves from the harsh realities of employment dynamics. Consequently, this resulted in extensive diversification of individual and group identities.

When examined through the lens of economic positioning, this fragmentation contained significant elements of randomness. Cultural theorists embraced this unpredictability as a core aspect of societal truth. Rather than interpreting it as stemming from class dynamics and novel methods of wealth concentration, they elevated it to a fundamental principle of human engagement, thus dealing a fatal blow to overarching or comprehensive explanatory stories.

By the early 2000s, several key advocates of cultural analysis started sensing a gap between the prevailing paradigm in social theory—focusing on culture and unpredictability—and the realities unfolding within the global political economy.

This happened concurrently with shifts in certain political dynamics that initially steered attention away from materialist examination. It marks potentially the initial phase towards reviving international labor organizations. Should this progression persist—which remains uncertain—I anticipate that many remnants of past decades might dissipate organically, particularly the passive embrace of multiple relativistic viewpoints they fostered. However, despite being severely weakening and leading to somewhat erroneous theories, the criticisms brought forth during the cultural shift must still be addressed rather than dismissed outright. Each confrontation offers materialists an occasion to scrutinize their ideology and strengthen it wherever necessary.

4. Three Concerns Regarding Rationality

What I suggest we do is tackle some of the concerns raised by the cultural arguments.

Materialists contend that, in various social occurrences, individuals can be anticipated to
rationally
Pursue their material goals. A significant portion of the worry among critical theorists revolves around what it signifies for individuals to act rationally. I will tackle three prevalent worries.

Firstly, describing agents as solely driven by economic goals diminishes all human motivations to just economic ones, when in reality humans prioritize numerous objectives. While economics plays a role in people’s lives, individuals also cherish love, friendship, ethical obligations, and artistic interests among others. To sum up, social participants exhibit multiple dimensions. This complexity actually sets us apart from animals. By prioritizing economic factors in explanations, we overlook the wide range of human motives and their varied nature.

The second issue lies in the notion that when we claim social actors focus on economic outcomes, we transform them into unfeeling, calculative automatons or strict profit-maximizing entities. This portrayal suggests more than mere self-interest; it implies an unhealthy fixation on extracting maximum benefit from all social engagements entered into. Again, such a depiction appears to misrepresent how human connections truly function and our ability to value individuals for themselves rather than merely instrumental purposes.

The third issue stemming from the initial points is that it becomes challenging to interpret numerous counterexamples found within our social experiences where individuals not only strive for different objectives but also chase various aims that seem illogical through the lens of such materialism. Consequently, the theory fails to meet an essential criterion expected of any scientific approach—it disregards counterexamples—thus turning into a dogmatic framework.


Is Economics the Sole Goal?

Does a materialist explanation of agency necessarily reduce all motivations to economics? While some materialists might suggest this view, their theories do not inherently demand such reductionism. Thus, how can one prevent collapsing every motive into an economic framework within a theoretical structure positing that both workers and capitalists act based on material incentives?

Allowing that individuals are driven by various values and maintain numerous types of commitments — moral, aesthetic, religious, etc. — doesn’t pose a threat to materialism. This perspective does not necessitate denying that humans have additional motivations or objectives. Instead, what matters is that pursuing those alternative aims relies upon successfully achieving basic material needs. For instance, aspiring to become an accomplished artist requires initially securing one’s livelihood; aiming for spiritual fulfillment demands maintaining physical well-being; and establishing harmonious interpersonal relationships hinges on ensuring daily sustenance. In essence, valuing other aspects isn’t the issue here; rather, nothing surpasses the importance of fulfilling fundamental material requirements.
precondition
for satisfying higher-order values.

Economic incentives form the foundational requirement for any other motives individuals may possess. This observation leads to an intriguing conclusion. Throughout our daily existence, we engage in various forms of social interaction — such as maintaining friendships, engaging in romantic relationships, working regularly, and striving towards political objectives. All these activities require certain material prerequisites which serve as practical limitations. To varying degrees, we must consider the expenses associated with them. Certain endeavors come with clear-cut costs that impact us almost instantly. As an illustration, one could place higher importance on leisure over paid labor. Yet despite this prioritization, facing unemployment would swiftly alter this inclination due to the immediate financial burden involved. Conversely, numerous choices provide greater flexibility regarding personal desires.

Once more, using the earlier illustration, reality will compel me to find and maintain a job despite my stronger inclination towards engaging in various other activities. However, this kind of conflict won’t affect certain cherished aspects of my life, such as practicing my faith. My ability to keep a job likely won’t be significantly influenced by my religious convictions. Provided that my religion doesn’t hinder my efforts to secure gainful employment, I can enjoy greater freedom when it comes to following my personal inclinations within that area.


The economic incentives will not have the same impact across all societal activities; their influence will vary significantly based on the specific field of endeavor.

Think about a third scenario. Although my faith generally doesn’t clash with my professional life, certain aspects of it could pose challenges. Suppose my belief system requires me to dedicate myself solely to worshipping at the local shrine for five days each week, leaving just two days free for labor. This aspect of my religious convictions conflicts directly with job requirements where I live—no employer would accommodate such limited availability. Here, practical considerations won’t compel me to abandon all tenets of my religion, yet these constraints will push me toward modifying or discreetly overlooking this specific rule. Thus, compared to the initial situation where I must completely discard personal leanings, then next instance leaves those intact, and finally here I’m inclined to adapt some parts of my practices according to societal norms.

We can derive from this the following statement: It is not true that economic incentives will have an equal influence across all aspects of societal activities. Instead, their impact will vary significantly based on the specific area of engagement. The strongest effects will occur in areas closely tied to our day-to-day material welfare, whereas in sectors unrelated to direct material sustenance, these constraints will be notably less pronounced.

As a result, material incentives hold the greatest sway in areas where economic limitations are felt most acutely. This concept aligns closely with our understanding of economics. When considering issues related to an actor’s financial sustainability, we can anticipate that assuming rational behavior would yield the highest accuracy in predictions. Indeed, this is precisely what the societal hierarchy primarily regulates. Class dynamics explicitly limit the options accessible to individuals concerning their fiscal continuity. Therefore, the means for sustaining one’s life depend on one’s position within the class framework. To put it another way, my standing in the class system dictates the pathways open to me if I wish to maintain my existence.

It comes as no surprise that when analyzing economic interactions—the functioning of capitalism within economies—the concept of rationality proves most effective, since pursuing our economic goals enables us to maintain our position within the social hierarchy. As we shift focus from scrutinizing individuals’ financial decisions towards broader areas such as friendships, romance, morality, and aesthetics, economic limitations tend to become less restrictive. These constraints still exist but offer greater flexibility due to their lack of direct impact on our survival compared to those faced in purely economic matters. Consequently, without posing immediate threats to one’s livelihood, non-economic pursuits may hold significant motivating power and typically align harmoniously with overall stability and security.

This does not imply that other areas lack material influences — many aspects related to ethical decisions, relationships, and even romance can be shaped by economic factors. However, non-economic valuations have more room within these realms compared to their presence in purely economic or political contexts. Hence, materialistic perspectives particularly enhance our understanding of political economy and political disputes, despite retaining significance across various fields.

This leads us to a crucial insight: Marxism places economic interests at the forefront of its understanding of human action not because Marxists believe individuals are inherently driven solely by economics across all contexts. Instead, it focuses on the sphere of social life dominated by economic factors—the process through which societies maintain their economic systems—and the dynamics of power sustaining these structures. Marxism does not purport to explain every aspect of society; rather, it specifically addresses issues related to class and how classes perpetuate themselves within a framework rooted in material conditions.


As other realms encroach upon the reproduction of class dynamics, materialist theory suggests that they will ultimately succumb to the power of economic incentives.

Of course, it includes discussions on how the class system restricts various aspects of social behavior. However, it neither claims nor implies that the class system equally affects all areas of social life. The extent to which its influence extends into other sectors remains uncertain and could serve as a basis for further investigation. Nonetheless, regardless of whether this theory can adequately explain these additional facets, it doesn’t rely solely on such broader applications. To conclude, according to materialist theory, when other societal elements affect the continuation of class dynamics, they tend to align with economic drives. Yet, concerning those parts unrelated to maintaining class structures, the theory offers limited insights.

These factors make it incorrect to believe that the concept of rationality fully encapsulates human motivations. People are driven by various elements; however, considerations regarding their material welfare set boundaries on the influence of other objectives.


Does Rationality Entail Hedonism?

It appears reasonable to assume that humans act rationally when striving to maintain their physical and financial health. However, the next question arises: Do people have to maximize everything? Is constant optimization necessary during each encounter? This is indeed a valid concern since such a perspective portrays human actions quite unfavorably and contradicts personal experiences. Everyday exchanges often include acts of kindness and thoughtfulness towards others. Such behaviors aren’t limited to specific highbrow contexts; they’re evident even within day-to-day transactions and economic activities. Individuals show respect for alternative values right where capitalism thrives—within workplaces themselves.

Initially, the principle of rationality doesn’t necessarily hinge on maximizing actions. Being economically motivated doesn’t mean one must relentlessly chase maximum profit from each encounter. Instead, individuals just need to ensure basic comfort levels, avoiding situations where their wellbeing drops significantly due to other obligations. This approach contrasts with maximizing behaviors and is referred to as satisficing—where decision-making involves preventing significant declines in welfare without necessitating an active quest for peak advancement. Hence, it’s entirely compatible with materialistic views when someone states, “Having sufficient resources suffices instead of aiming for everything.”

Certainly, there will be instances where performers feel obligated to optimize their actions. Referring back to the earlier part, we can anticipate that within strictly financial endeavors, there’s a higher chance of encountering an optimization approach being enforced. A clear illustration of this phenomenon occurs in capitalist enterprises, which are typically driven towards adopting an optimizing strategy regardless of whether management wishes otherwise. Market forces incentivize such behaviors by boosting the income levels of companies adhering to these strategies, thereby providing more resources for investment. This additional funding allows businesses to acquire new machinery, reducing per-unit production expenses. Consequently, they gain advantages over competitors employing merely satisfactory tactics.

However, this doesn’t imply that economic interactions inherently drive maximization behaviors universally. Workers aren’t subject to the same pressure for economic gain as businesses are. While companies must adhere to maintaining at least a certain level of profitability, workers might accept lower wages than the prevailing market rates either due to coercion or personal choice since corporations need to ensure they stay profitable.
economically
feasible while workers only need to be
physically
Firms must evaluate every investment based on its opportunity cost; therefore, they may opt to alter their production processes even if the facilities are still operational or shut down entire plants despite being fully functional, since doing so could be economically advantageous. Conversely, employees might turn down higher-paying jobs to focus on different objectives. Provided they earn sufficient income from their current position, they could elect to keep it as it allows them free time for other activities.

Therefore, even when considering purely economic factors, workers often reject behavior driven solely by maximization. It’s crucial to understand that despite deviating from such an approach, they must ensure their basic physiological requirements are met while pursuing non-economic objectives. As they strive to uphold these additional obligations, they need to maintain both their health and livelihoods. Interestingly, for this reason, the capitalist system incites distinct types of economic incentives among its primary participants—firms and workers. Firms adhere rigorously to a profit-maximizing tactic, whereas workers aren’t propelled by identical relentless principles.

Therefore, we can deduce that as long as individuals meet their fundamental requirements, it aligns well with materialism for them to reject additional financial gains in pursuit of alternative objectives. As such, some employees might opt for less lucrative positions over higher paying ones if those roles offer opportunities for other pursuits. However, these choices do have boundaries beyond which people typically won’t venture solely due to non-viability concerns. Often before reaching extreme conditions where survival becomes an issue, mere physical discomfort usually prompts societal participants to revert back towards focusing on practical aspects related to their core economic motivations. Thus, within materialistic frameworks, certain unpredictable elements find room yet remain bounded by specific limitations.


The Problem of Deviations

The previous argument aims to align the assertions of materialism with certain evident aspects of social engagement. However, numerous theorists find this insufficient, and seemingly for valid reasons. Critics may concede that factors related to materials hold significant weight within social interactions. Yet, to claim that these
constrain
Social actions suggest that they hold a precedence which can be challenging to align with specific realities. For instance, within the types of movements and engagements I’ve cited as proof of the materialistic perspective, history is filled with cases of significant risks and sacrifices made by collectives — labor organizers functioning under oppressive circumstances; freedom fighters engaging in battles despite overwhelming disadvantages; civil rights activists enduring bodily harm without hesitation; business leaders choosing reduced earnings to adhere to ethical principles. Despite these scenarios coming from domains where material factors appear paramount, we encounter situations wherein individuals make immense personal sacrifices driven by their moral convictions. This makes it difficult to support assertions about the supremacy of material motivations.

The key issue isn’t whether examples like these occur, but rather whether they represent common occurrences. Are individuals routinely inclined to pursue outcomes detrimental to their own welfare, or do such cases stand apart as exceptions? Initially, it’s crucial to recognize that social theory doesn’t aim to explain each individual within a society; instead, it focuses on groups and broader societal trends. Social facts differ from personal ones because they describe widespread behavioral tendencies rather than actions tied to single persons. For any concept to hold up under scrutiny, researchers must identify behaviors consistent enough across various individuals and situations. The existence of even one contradictory case shouldn’t negate a hypothesis, considering it relatively simple to uncover isolated incidents of nearly any type of conduct. Simply discovering anomalies doesn’t disprove a generalized observation.

Every examination of a theory must differentiate between common occurrences and anomalies. If the disruptive event is an anomaly — one that is uncommon and infrequent — it doesn’t disprove a broad theoretical principle. Instead, such events fall under a separate category of exceptions, which researchers study to identify specific conditions responsible for these instances. These outliers won’t refute a theory until they accumulate sufficiently to form their own societal reality.


What analysts take to be a departure from rational action is in fact an instance of that very sort; it is the analyst who is making the error, not the agent whom they are analyzing.

Think about labor unions. Indeed, numerous union members willingly bear significant burdens in order to mobilize their colleagues. However, these same organizers understand that the difficulty and frequent lack of success in their endeavors stem from the distinct mindset of those they aim to unite with. The activists are prepared to disregard individual sacrifices driven by their strong moral convictions; however, most workers do not share this willingness. Were they inclined similarly, organizing would indeed be unnecessary—workers would naturally come together based on shared principles despite potential hardships. Similarly, certain business leaders may opt for reduced earnings due to principled decisions. Yet, the inherent nature of markets typically eliminates instances like these over time. Through continuous screening processes and observable outcomes, others swiftly grasp that compassion has little room within competitive environments. Consequently, acts rooted in morality remain exceptional occurrences against a backdrop where employers generally show apathy or engage in unethical practices.

To conclude, individual exceptions do not undermine a broader theoretical framework unless those exceptions become widespread occurrences. However, it’s crucial to recognize that these exceptions must genuinely conflict with the established theory. Often, situations presented as challenges to the overarching principle may actually align with it. Many times, actions deemed irrational by observers could indeed represent examples of the same principles at play. Essentially, the mistake lies with the interpreter rather than the subject being analyzed.

One notable illustration often cited in critiques of materialist theory involves working-class voters seemingly casting ballots contrary to their own economic interests. Consider how these individuals frequently support political parties aligned with entities perceived as adversaries, such as the Republican Party in the U.S. or similar conservative groups abroad. This raises questions about why workers might choose candidates who appear detrimental to their welfare when pursuing their financial well-being. In contrast to instances involving moral business leaders or dedicated activists, which can be seen as rare exceptions, this phenomenon represents a widespread and valid aspect of societal behavior.

I propose that this situation isn’t actually confusing. Instead of being an instance where workers act contrary to their best interests, it’s more accurately seen as a scenario where employees strive for those interests. There are two key aspects to consider here. Firstly, stating that rational individuals aim towards their self-interest doesn’t imply they consistently achieve these goals. This assertion pertains solely to their intentions rather than the outcome of their efforts. It is entirely possible for me to engage in certain actions believing firmly that they align with my interests, despite achieving less favorable or unintended consequences. These outcomes wouldn’t classify me as irrational; instead, they indicate merely a lack of success. On the other hand, persistently pursuing the same course when faced with evident proof that doing so does not serve one’s interests could indeed label someone as irrational. Yet, discussing such behavior involves a separate consideration and must stand alone from initial judgments. Prior to reaching conclusions regarding irrational conduct, we should initially evaluate whether the original decision was inherently flawed.

To evaluate its logic, let’s revisit the fundamental assertion of the materialist perspective: individuals engage in actions they believe align with their self-interests. To determine what serves my interest, I must gauge how these actions impact my overall welfare—this point has been clarified previously. Moving forward, I’ll incorporate an additional differentiation to scrutinize the scenario involving the working-class voter. This involves distinguishing between various types of judgments made.
direct experience
and judgments from
external information
.

When determining if a particular approach aligns with my best interest, I often turn to personal experiences for insights. Take, for instance, the set of objectives related to my job; they stem directly from firsthand encounters. It’s clear that fundamental requirements such as having sufficient resources for daily necessities, getting proper rest, and maintaining good health must be met. Based on past experiences, some workplace conditions clearly support these essential needs better than others do. Therefore, through this lens, I understand roughly how much income would suffice for a comfortable life, recognize the ideal duration needed for slumber each night, and gauge the appropriate workload level necessary without compromising my well-being.

It’s extremely challenging to deceive me when it comes to these matters. Convincing me that a reduced salary would benefit me or that an intense workload would improve my well-being would be quite tough. Given that I can quickly assess such suggestions based on personal experiences, I am able to dismiss them outright without much hesitation. This explains why employees typically only tolerate worsening conditions like these due to severe pressure — either the fear of losing their jobs or following extended conflicts with management. Therefore, developing “false consciousness” regarding this set of concerns isn’t easy for someone like me.

However, there’s another type of information pertinent to my concerns that doesn’t originate from personal experience. Such data stems from outside sources — often requiring specialized expertise for synthesis and consolidation across various pieces of knowledge most of which aren’t directly accessible to me personally.
For instance, through firsthand experiences, I’ve learned that holding onto employment is crucial for surviving within a capitalist system; similarly, recognizing the necessity of adequate paychecks underscores basic survival needs like food and shelter. Additionally, it becomes clear how governmental strategies impact job markets. Yet, understanding precisely which types of policies optimally achieve these goals remains beyond my grasp without additional insight. Questions arise: Are lower or higher interest rates more beneficial? Should we advocate for unrestricted international commerce or protective measures instead?
While possessing a steady occupation undoubtedly proves advantageous based on lived realities, identifying specific economic approaches fostering quality job opportunities still eludes straightforward comprehension due to numerous intermediary factors at play between financial indicators like interest levels and tangible outcomes such as new positions being created. Consequently, consulting with specialists who possess both the requisite background and sufficient bandwidth seems essential here.


It’s simple to create narratives that cloud the link between policies and their effects because it’s not hard to locate economists or policy specialists who offer completely contradictory views on these matters.

If decisions depend more on outside counsel instead of personal firsthand knowledge, there is a higher risk of misunderstanding, despite one’s efforts to act in their own interest. Consider healthcare as an illustration. You personally understand you’re experiencing discomfort; you realize that receiving some form of medical attention will alleviate your suffering. Yet, identifying exactly what kind of intervention suits your condition necessitates consulting physicians. Imagine a physician provides incorrect guidance with the aim of boosting his profits, or perhaps adheres strictly to certain therapeutic options dictated by health insurers due to constraints imposed upon them. Even when following such recommendations, you might find yourself in a worsened state compared to where you started. It wouldn’t be fair to claim that you weren’t acting in accordance with your needs or were unaware of those requirements. Clearly, you strive to safeguard your well-being based on available resources, yet lacking immediate insight into crucial details makes you susceptible to exploitation.

If it turns out that the experts I depend on—such as media organizations, political figures, and community leaders—are driven by personal agendas and stand to gain from deceiving me, then despite making rational decisions aimed at protecting my interests, I could inadvertently cast my ballot for someone promoting policies detrimental or outright counterproductive for me. In the U.S., both the media landscape and major political factions are heavily influenced by wealthy economic elite groups. Consequently, the data disseminated to ordinary citizens tends to lean towards partisanship, cloaked under an ostensibly impartial veneer. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a shock that individuals often support political entities whose priorities diverge significantly from theirs, considering how skewed this provided information can be.

The most accurate portrayal of this situation isn’t that working-class voters lack rationality, but rather that they are inadequately informed. Nonetheless, persistent misinformation might suggest irrational behavior if individuals fail to modify their conduct when faced with evidence of ineffectiveness. Consider the instance of healthcare: If following my physician’s advice worsens my ailment instead of improving it, continuing down that path would indeed demonstrate irrational thinking. Similarly, we could judge working-class conservatives as irrational if they repeatedly support policies without altering their stance despite negative outcomes. One would anticipate these voters adjusting their perspective after several disappointing experiences.

This holds true when a direct link between policy decisions and negative consequences can be clearly observed through firsthand experiences. However, if making such judgments requires additional input from specialists, expecting employees to alter their choices becomes impractical. Moreover, the relationship linking policy measures to financial results isn’t always clear—even for professionals. There’s an often-repeated notion suggesting that despite claiming scientific status, economics doesn’t achieve anywhere near the level of agreement seen in natural sciences.

It becomes simple to create narratives that blur the link between policies and their effects because one can easily locate economists or policy analysts who offer completely contradictory viewpoints on these matters. Expecting typical citizens to consistently assess the impact of their votes amid the uncertainty surrounding causality and outcome, or considering the necessity for specialized knowledge and extended observation periods beyond what average voters possess, sets an unreasonably high standard. Therefore, it’s unsurprising that people might persist along paths seemingly detrimental to themselves.

Conclusion

The devaluation of material concerns—the rejection of them as a crude preoccupation with “stuff” in favor of a refined emphasis on loftier ambitions—is among the more peculiar transformations within Western Marxism since the 1960s. As Sebastiano Timpanaro bravely defended materialism during the early ’70s, he highlighted how theorists of Marxism were beginning to express unease about this association. “Arguably, the only trait shared across nearly every iteration of contemporary Western Marxism,” he pointed out, “is their eagerness to counter accusations of adhering to materialistic principles.” He went further,

Hegelian-Existentialist Marxists, Gramscian or Togliattian Marxists, Neo-Positivist Marxists, Freudian or Structuralist Marxists—all these groups, despite their significant disagreements on other matters, unanimously reject any hint of association with “crude” or “mechanistic” materialism. They do this so fervently that they end up discarding not just mechanistic thinking but also what they consider vulgar elements alongside it.

materialism

tout court.

Timpanaro’s assessment came across as somewhat hasty. Although the shift towards cultural considerations had become noticeable during the ’70s, a robust and impactful strand of materialist theory persisted for at least another ten years. However, what appeared precipitous in 1970 had turned into an indisputable reality by 2000. With labor movements and leftist factions losing strength, and intellectuals increasingly distancing themselves from active politics, prioritizing discourse and ideology over material conditions transitioned from being just one perspective within radical thought to nearly becoming dogma.

One of the pressing duties within progressive movements today is to challenge established norms. To achieve this, I’ve contended that regardless of what specifics arise from it, a materialist framework doesn’t necessitate viewing actors merely as simplistic or unfeeling calculators focused solely on maximizing benefits. Instead, materialism highlights securing basic needs like economics and safety as foundational prerequisites before pursuing additional aspirations. These essential requirements do not necessarily overshadow all others; however, when faced with conflicts between them, ignoring these basics comes at considerable consequence. Hence, although dedicated persons may opt for significant struggles even if detrimental to personal health, generally speaking, most folks won’t follow suit. As the severity of required sacrifices grows, so too does their inclination towards rejecting such options, adjusting instead according to prevailing conditions’ expectations.

Based on this groundwork, one can develop a theory centered on individuals’ material interests—a key factor behind Marxism’s effectiveness as a political ideology. Since humans prioritize their welfare, social dynamics that significantly impact its level and consistency wield substantial sway over personal decisions. Among all societal relationships, the class system holds greater importance for shaping how agents perceive such factors. Thus, it comes as little surprise that Marxism, with its focus on class analysis, stands out as an ardent advocate of materialist thought.


Materialism offers not just a method for widespread opposition to capitalism but also a deeply democratic way of tackling such resistance.

Materialism acknowledges that individuals are driven by numerous factors. One of its strengths as an approach to understanding social action lies in its ability to elucidate both why capitalism has expanded globally into various cultures and how it maintains this diversity within these societies. This occurs because people manage to retain elements of their local customs that align with economic demands, while modifying or discarding practices that conflict with such requirements. Essentially, it represents a pragmatic decision-making process. Consequently, materialism offers insights into cultural evolution alongside theories concerning economic replication. Individuals contemplate their principles and traditions before perpetuating only those aligned with their circumstances, dismissing others that obstruct their financial objectives and necessities.

Ultimately, materialism offers not merely a method for widespread opposition to capitalism but also a deeply democratic manner of engaging in such resistance. At the core of any democratic involvement lies treating others with dignity. This becomes unattainable when one presumes individuals lack critical thinking skills, can be easily misled, or are solely shaped by cultural influences. Those involved in political activism must adopt an outlook where they interact with thoughtful and reflective participants. They need to present convincing arguments encouraging these constituents to oppose their authorities in specific ways. It’s crucial to believe that people will embrace a political plan based on logic rather than resorting to manipulation or frequently seen tactics like shaming and pressuring prevalent amongst contemporary leftist groups.

All these points have been intuitively grasped by progressive thinkers throughout much of the Left’s existence. It comes as no shock that when social theorization separated itself from actual organization efforts, intricate interpretations within culture studies began dominating discussions among critical theorists. Conversely, it isn’t surprising that over those years where leftist scholars focused heavily on class-based organizing, assumptions rooted in materialism remained largely unchallenged. Returning to a sensible approach may be a lengthy journey, yet this path inevitably circles back towards fundamental aspects of sociological thought. Among them stands out prominently—materialist thinking.

The following article is

reprinted

from
Catalyst: A Magazine of Theory and Strategy
, a release from the Foundation. At present,

you can subscribe

into the printed version of
Catalyst
for just $20.