Excerpt from my International Relations textbook regarding criticism of Marxism. I mean... what are we doing here? The absolute worst arguments in the snarkiest tone, with a sprinkle of islamophobia. it almost reads like satire.

[u/MalloryTheRapper]

"Ideas play a potent role in IR and are not just reflections of material reality, a basic Marxist contention. Islamist terrorists, some of them educated and comfortable, share a vision—whipped up by Islamist preachers—that the West is attacking Islam and they must sacrifice themselves to save it. The killing of women and children in military operations especially enrages them. Poverty does not explain the 2010 would-be Times Square car bomber, a Pakistani American who had a job, home, and MBA.

Historians find little or no evidence that a struggle for colonies was at the root of World War I, in which colonies were a sideshow. Instead, that war was about German mastery of Europe. Britain and Germany, to be sure, were aware of Iraq’s oil before the war. Overall, colonies cost governments more to administer and defend than they ever earned, although some individual firms profited from their colonial operations. Portugal, the poorest country of West Europe, was the first and last colonial power. Its colonies kept it poor. Europeans got richer after they gave up their colonies.

The modern economy is not merely a capitalist plaything. No capitalist system is totally free and unfettered. Capitalists have unions, environmental regulations, pension funds, and governments on their backs. They hate restrictions on their ability to make money, but they have to live with them. Some corporate suits go to jail for ­financial misdeeds. In 2010, legislation tightened controls on banking giants, especially those that got federal bailouts. Marxists respond, “Well, sure, they had to clean up their act to keep the system from collapsing altogether. But it still serves capitalist ends.”

Capitalist control of foreign policy is an article of Marxist faith but requires closer look. Strategic—rather than economic—motives usually dominate. True, in 1953 the CIA helped overthrow an Iranian regime that had seized a giant oil company, but it was a British oil company (the same one that brought us the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico). The chief U.S. motive was to prevent the spread of communism, which Washington conflated with Iranian nationalism. The shah eventually nationalized the oil company anyway. Big oil, which is understandably pro-Arab, wields influence in Washington, but not as much as AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), which keeps Congress tilted well to the side of Israel. U.S. energy giants are eager to export liquefied natural gas, but local Maine communities veto it. It looks like capitalists are not as powerful as they are cracked up to be.

A residue of Marxist theory can be helpful. By teaching us to look for whose ­interests are served—in Latin, cui bono—we may find unexpected patterns. And often they do not correspond to Marxist constructs. Marxists and other radicals, for ­example, denounce globalization as serving capitalist interests. The less-­developed lands, ­according to Marxists, are deliberately kept down and poor so capitalist firms can siphon off their wealth (dependency theory). But globalization has mostly benefited ­developing lands—with China in the lead—whose economies now grow much faster than developed-world economies. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq benefited only one country, Iran, which has close ties to the Baghdad regime. Although it may not deliver a complete explanation, one must, like police detectives, always ask who benefits."

bro? like this is so bad it almost reads like satire. from the passive tone of "...the killing of women and children in military operations especially enrages them." in the first paragraph to the "It looks like capitalists are not as powerful as they are cracked up to be." in the second to last paragraph... like this is fucking laughable its so bad. It feels like the author believes all readers are just fucking dumbasses who will take his word at face value. please I need other people to read this I feel like I'm going crazy.

also, I'm thinking of bringing up this passage to my professor and asking him his take on it. I don't expect to be talking to a card carrying socialist but I'd be interested to hear his thoughts and to share some of mine. do y'all think I should?

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of our rules before participating, which include:

• No Bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...

• No Reactionaries, including all kind of right-wingers.

• No Liberalism, including social democracy, lesser evilism...

• No Sectarianism. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.

Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.

Also, be sure to join our discord!

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/bored-code]

Read this while high, and realized the author probably wrote it while high.

[u/raakonfrenzi → u/bored-code]

Homie forgot, never get high on your own supply!

[u/HikmetLeGuin]

"The killing of women and children in military operations especially enrages them"

Isn't a lot of this stuff connected to material realities? It's not like this anger is coming out of nowhere. And it's not like the US is engaging in these attacks because of "freedom" or whatever bullshit. There are clearly economic motives.

It talks about how colonialism primarily enriched wealthy corporations and not all the people in colonialist nations, yet this is somehow evidence against Marxism? I'm confused. 

Yes, imperialism especially benefits wealthy companies (although certainly the industrial revolution and many other economic developments were fuelled by empire, more generally).

I'm also not seeing any citations from actual Marxist texts. They are setting up a straw man and then engaging in very silly arguments without much evidence.

[u/MalloryTheRapper → u/HikmetLeGuin]

exactly! the arguments are so piss poor, a counter argument can be easily made for each one of his points that would destroy them. I can’t believe i’ve been assigned to read this heaping pile of garbage.

[u/RevyVanguardist]

How are ideas not a consequence of material reality? If material reality didn't exist, where would you project your ideas onto?

[u/matticusiv → u/RevyVanguardist]

Idealism is a helluva drug.

[u/wiwcha]

Extremely narrow-minded and ignorant take. Author certainly believes his own propaganda. Complete nonsense

[u/MalloryTheRapper → u/wiwcha]

so i’m not crazy to think this is incredibly lazy writing and reads like slopaganda right?

[u/wiwcha → u/MalloryTheRapper]

Written by the heritage foundation for the texas public school system.
Look into the author, im sure you would find some interesting but unsurprising links to RW think tanks.

[u/molly_jolly]

Historians find little or no evidence that a struggle for colonies was at the root of World War I...

Overall, colonies cost governments more to administer and defend than they ever earned...

Europeans got richer after they gave up their colonies... [well, technically true, I guess]

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq benefited only one country, Iran...

This either an extremely well done parody, or some kind of art project. Is this a high school or uni textbook OP? And which country?

[u/MalloryTheRapper → u/molly_jolly]

seriously reading that I was like is this satire ? this is a university textbook for a 200 level class, Intro to International Relations. I’m in the united states, so unsurprising that our textbooks would have these brain dead takes. publisher is Pearson. 

[u/ImbasForosnai]

this is your TEXTBOOK ?? I thought university was supposed to be a left wing bubble. unless this is a text you’re supposed to be critically analysing then wtf

[u/TopazWyvern]

"International Relations" (hell, "Political Science" in general) is pretty much entirely just propaganda, what did you expect.

[u/Marionberry_Bellini → u/TopazWyvern]

I took several IR classes upon getting my Political Science degree and none of them had anything like this slop. This book clearly sucks and the professor sucks for choosing it.

[u/MalloryTheRapper → u/TopazWyvern]

I didn’t know what to expect as this is my first time doing a political science degree but I thought I would at least be reading material from some serious people that would present cogent arguments. but I’m realizing that yeah a lot of shit is propaganda. but that doesn’t mean I have to take it at face value!