Response to the “geography is destiny” arguement?

There is a classic quote I usually refer to when someone asks this question regarding Geographical Determinism.

It is from Stalin's 1938 Dialectical and Historical Materialism itself:

There can be no doubt that the concept "conditions of material life of society" includes, first of all, nature which surrounds society, geographical environment, which is one of the indispensable and constant conditions of material life of society and which, of course, influences the development of society. What role does geographical environment play in the development of society? Is geographical environment the chief force determining the physiognomy of society, the character of the social system of man, the transition from one system to another, or isn't it?

Historical materialism answers this question in the negative.

Geographical environment is unquestionably one of the constant and indispensable conditions of development of society and, of course, influences the development of society, accelerates or removed its development. But its influence is not the determining influence, inasmuch as the changes and development of society proceed at an incomparably faster rate than the changes and development of geographical environment. in the space of 3000 years three different social systems have been successively superseded in Europe: the primitive communal system, the slave system and the feudal system. In the eastern part of Europe, in the U.S.S.R., even four social systems have been superseded. Yet during this period geographical conditions in Europe have either not changed at all, or have changed so slightly that geography takes no note of them. And that is quite natural. Changes in geographical environment of any importance require millions of years, whereas a few hundred or a couple of thousand years are enough for even very important changes in the system of human society.

It follows from this that geographical environment cannot be the chief cause, the determining cause of social development; for that which remains almost unchanged in the course of tens of thousands of years cannot be the chief cause of development of that which undergoes fundamental changes in the course of a few hundred years

In the academic discipline of Geography, this sort of inevitable determinism, has been rejected since about the 1950s for both it's colonial assertions, but also it's patently inaccurate claims. No serious social scientist of any background would take the claims of geographical determinism at face value.

If you would like to entertain a more serious and dialectical understanding of Geography and it's relation to class society, I would recommend a A Theory of Imperialism (2017) by Patnaik and Patnaik. There has also been numerous other works dealing with Uneven (and Combined) Development within an urban, urban-rural, and of course, international contexts aswell.

Hell, if anything, Marxism's pre-occupation with the peasant question and primitive accumulation IS already a valuable theoretical and practical contribution to understanding the role of Geography in society. And unlike the vulgar geographical determinism of the Eurocentrists in which colonialism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, Marxism has always been a few steps ahead of conventional western science in that regard.

One thing to consider is the Eurocentrism of what it means to be "advanced" in these contexts. When Europeans invaded and colonized the Americas, yes they had many material advantages, but something key to consider is the cultures and humanity and decisions made and how they differed between cultures in Europe and the Americas. Europeans were vicious and condescending, rapidly transitioning from curiosity and trade to plunder and murder and ethnic cleansing. The fate of the indigenous people of Hispaniola, for example. In contrast, there were rich cultures across the Americas with wide diversities of thought and philosophies, none of which compared to the barbarity of Europeans (even the supporters of regional empires in the Americas couldn't hold a candle to the salting of the earth depravity of Euros).

I'm pointing at all of this because the common Euro narratives are imbued with a social darwinism that conflates conquering and violence with success and superiority. They then go a step farther to absolve themselves of blame for developing cultures so barbaric, pointing at things like you mentioned, including geography. While on one hand material conditions are extremely important and explain a lot, they should not allow us to cease a political or philosophical or cultural critique, nor to accept simplistic and vulgar analysis of material explanations. The colonial mindset that genocided continents persists in its evolved form of imperialism of the US-led capitalist order.

The barbarity of Euro colonizer cultures lingers, which is a reason they avoid drawing attention to the continuity of capitalism and ethnic cleansing over these hundreds of years. They'd be forced to take a position against empire, to make statements that suggest a need to change the current order. Instead, they safely leave the material in the past, implicitly supporting the status quo.

"Geography is Destiny" mfs when I tell them that Eurofucks had to rely on stealing resources from the Global South to as much as get a taste of being advanced technologically and in higher standards of living to the point where they no longer had to rely on plundering one another like they always did for thousands of years:

It sounds like a vulgar materialism.

I don't think the idea itself is wrong but calling it "destiny" is hyperbole. Geography is definitely a real material factor that has an impact on how societies develop and on the interactions they have with other societies. It's a part of the overall environment and a constraint that humans like any other species have had to adapt to over the course of our development. It's a long time since i read Guns, Germs and Steel and i would have to revisit it to offer more substantive critique, but as with most literature of this kind that is written by Western authors for Western audiences there is always some amount of Eurocentrism there which skews the point of view leading to post-hoc justifications for why certain things had to happen.

What no historical materialism does to a mf

The concept of class is fluid and is continuously being redefined. Slaves and masters, kings and serfs, etc.

But what is a constant is that we always strive towards equality, and that struggle will always lead us to develop new modes of production.

Capitalism was just the result of attempts to develop away from monarchism; to make capital and the holders of capital to be king, rather than a lineage.

It’s got nothing to do with the resources of an area. If it did, Australian aborigines would be the dominant superpower, as they had the most uranium.

Regarding "Guns Germs and Steel" specifically, that book (and its supporters) are so hated among historians that it's on multiple FAQs on reddit's r/askhistorians. Here's what I think is the best comment on that. This one is also very complete.

Basically the entire thesis of the book hinges on a revisionist and white pop history version of colonialism, in which Europeans landed and left some disease, then later came back and won decisive military victories against the now scattered and weak indigenous peoples, who could barely fight back. In fact the "death by disease" largely happened after forced resettlements, slavery and concentration camps, and the genocides throughout both north and south America were not quick affairs, but were concerted efforts up to at least the mid-19th century, if not today.

This is a common theme with vulgar materialists, once they've decided on what factors will have inevitably generated the results that happened, all nuance of the facts is thrown out of the window if it disagrees with their historical formulae. They have to disregard all technological and cultural advancements of the people who lost, as well as their adaptability to new circumstances or the near-losses of the victors in order to portray history as inevitable.

This article is also a pretty good introduction to that whole history in the USA.

Building up on Neptium comment, different geographical conditions lead to different variables but it is not the chief determinant force in development.

In Engels book on the origin of private property and the state it is mentioned how the "old world" had an advantage over america, it had almost all of the domesticable animals. This lead to the development of animal husbandry and a very easy and plentiful source of food. In contrast, america had to develop agriculture to produce more food since it had only the turkey and the llamas. The civilizations in america had a much better understanding of farming than in the old world, even tho they lacked in the tools department.

Another fun fact is how much more developed hygiene was in america.

Geographic Determinism overstates the role of geographic conditions in the development of society (though I think some people in the thread are making it out to be worse than it is).

Dialectics are a useful framework for dissecting this problem. Geography does play a part in the development of human societies, but it is not the only part - there is also the world of ideas, individual people and events, and pure random chance.

Geographic Determinism is almost the most extreme form of Historical Materialism - that material conditions are the absolute driver of societal development. This debate is useful in that it shows us Historical Materialism is not absolute - that the actions of individual people and groups, movements and inventions, do matter - even if the material conditions and class interests are always the more important factor.

The "absolution of guilt" part is trickier. Marxism is not a moralistic ideology. If anything, GG&S hews more to the Marxist orthodoxy than many people in this thread. Marxism presumes that classes will always tend to act in their own class interests - that it is natural for the oppressor to oppress, and that it is up to the lower classes to secure their own power. White people were never going to feel guilty about colonialism - it is in their class interests to apologize for themselves in whatever small way they can to ease their conscience. To expect them to do otherwise is un-Marxist; it is un-Marxist to expect the upper classes to change society for you, instead of the oppressed class changing society proactively.

I wrote out a long comment and deleted it, might come back to this, but check out world systems & dependency theory guys.

I really really recommend Eurocentrism (2nd edition) by Samir Amin