What Does a Marxist Mean by “Material” - An Anti-Imperialism Discussion

Aug 26, 2026

Uploaded by Cipher

Marxism’s “material” is examined through a dialectical materialist lens, distinguishing it from three common but mistaken interpretations. The text challenges the idea that “material” means only physical objects, that it is synonymous with the economic, or that it refers to pre-social entities prior to social relations. Using surplus value as an example, it argues that social relations are material in the sense that they exist externally to individual will and are objectified in things, while the relations themselves are not physical objects.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages14

Reading Time35 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Common Misconceptions About “Material”

Material as Physical Objects

Material as the “Economic”

Material as Pre-Social Things

Material as Social Relations (Alternative View)

1/21/2018 Gmail-Coloring Pages NameNoDisplay NoThanks <[davidchevel@gmail.com](davidchevel@gmail.com)> Coloring Pages David Chevel <[davidchevel@gmail.com](davidchevel@gmail.com)> Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 3:31 PM To: David Chevel <[davidchevel@gmail.com](davidchevel@gmail.com)> If there is anything that can be identified as “Marxism,” it is the Marxist method, both in theoretical and political practice. On the level of theory, this Marxist method is dialectical materialism—or if one prefers, a materialist dialectic (emphasizing that what makes a theory materialist are the mechanics of the dialectic itself) . When this method is applied to construct a theory of the “social formation,” we get what we call historical materialism. Being a material-ist method, Marxism presumably has something to do with the “material.” But what does that mean? What follows is a brief discussion of three mistaken and related conceptions of what a Marxist means by “material”: 1) that the “material” refers only to physical objects; 2) that the “material” is synonymous with the “economic”; 3) that the“material” refers to things which are “pre-social,” in the sense of existing “prior” to social relations. The problems with all of these notions will be discussed, followed by a brief description of an alternative. The “material” as physical objects A common misconception about what constitutes the “material” is that the latter refers only to physical objects and the physical properties of those objects. To a large extent, this misconception is aided along by Marx himself. For instance, Marx occasionally refers to the production of commodities as “material production,” in the sense that commodities are physical “things.” Marx also occasionally refers to the production of non-commodities, such as services, as “non-material production.” Additionally, Marx sometimes labels the physical properties of an object (e.g. its chemical composition) as its “material properties.” But does this really mean that Marx’s material-ism—the materialism from which we draw when we employ a materialist dialectic—only or even primarily concerns itself with physical things and their inherent properties? Despite Marx’s own inconsistency in his terminology, in light of the overall logic that emerges from Marx’s work (especially in the Grundrisse and in Capital), we have to answer that question with a resounding no. This case can be demonstrated rather easily. [https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f6bbb02519&view=lg&msg=1611a6b0f8102208](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f6bbb02519&view=lg&msg=1611a6b0f8102208) 1/34 1/21/2018 Gmail-Coloring Pages The production of surplus value occupies considerable space in the four volumes of Capital. Surplus value, plainly stated, is a social relation wherein capitalists—who control means of production—employ workers who only have their labor-power to sell, and wherein the capitalists force workers to labor for longer than is required to reproduce the workers’ own existence. In these terms, is surplus value something we can touch or see? Certainly we can see/touch the objects in which surplus value is embodied. We can also clearly seethe effectsof surplus value—the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a relative few, and the impoverishment of most of humanity. But surplus value itself… is this something that we can really say is a physical object? Definitely not; ultimately surplus value is not a “thing” but a relation between people. Can surplus value be considered a physical property of an object, inherent to its composition? No; although surplus value has a measure (labor-time), it cannot be measured at the level of a commodity’s physical properties. As Marx quips,“So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange value [or surplus value for that matter—F. B.] either in a pearl or a diamond.”1 Commodities may embody surplus value, but only because they are produced within a social relation between workers and capit

FAQs

What does the text identify as the Marxist method behind “Marxism”?

It identifies the Marxist method as dialectical materialism, which treats the mechanics of the dialectic itself as materialist.

Why does the author reject the view that “material” means only physical objects?

Physical objects can embody relations, but the relations themselves—like those expressed through surplus value—are not reducible to physical properties of commodities.

How does the author explain “material” in terms of social relations?

Social relations exist externally to individual will and are objectified in things; therefore, they count as “material,” even though they are not “things” themselves.

Aug 26, 2026

Uploaded by Cipher