I am running out of catchy ideas for titles

It seems to me that as I read historical materialism I am stuck by how realist it is. Just as world systems theory appeared to be structural realism with money, so too is historical materialism. The example that stuck me the most was that both of them deal with the interactions of great powers. Realism doesn’t care what Seychelles does because they don’t have any military power. Historical material doesn’t care about them because they aren’t a great capitalist power that is fighting for resources. Historical materialism is dealing with the same states and the same rivalries that realism is, and is looking at them in a strikingly similar way. Thus historical materialism is realist economics, it’s all about the strong trying to get stronger by securing resources and markets.

The only possible exception would be the Soviet Union. Realism was obviously very concerned with the Soviet Union, and still is. But since they weren’t a capitalist power historical materialism wouldn’t care about them. Right? But I would argue that historical materialism should be concerned about them since they were just as much of an empire trying to control resources as the US, or any of the European powers ever were.

Ok so world systems theory and historical materialism both look like realism but what does this mean. Maybe it means that the world is an anarchic place which requires power and force (whether military or economic, although the two reinforce each other) to be able to survive or prosper. Thus as someone who sees a lot of value in realism I feel as though both of the two theories we read about this week are useful tools for me to have at my disposal. They serve as good corollaries to realism. And that’s about the best compliment I am going to give to a bunch of dirty hippies.

Matt Bank