Passing of an older left, gestation of the new

Source: [Marxism] Marta Harnecker and the Death of the Latin American Hard Left

The left is in transition and we have tried multiple new versions of such an entity, as the idea of a ‘left’ transposes backward with our cowcatcher meme of the year 1848 and its huge spawn of southpaw outfits: this is a way to look to pre-marxist origins and to be both critical of marxism which took over the field and yet able to abscond with a number of its tenets/insights. We need, even if we adopt a critical marxism to see the logic of revolutionary thinking before the onset of reformist thinking. Managing that dialectic is not so simple but as we have suggested if we actually adopt that dialectic then the revolutionary tends to become dominant theoretically even as the reformist proliferates in practice. The reformist legacy simply presses the reset button on the revolutionary option despite the lack of any realistic such radicalism. And we are talking about that in terms of the US/american capitalist juggernaut, a prospect that sets the Berniacs into motion as reformists in halloween ‘our revolution’ costumes.
We have created a new idea for a neo-communism, with a divorce from the marxist legacy, banished to the footnotes as reserve dna: we must reinvent the whole subject, which requires seeing the close connection of liberalism and communism across the divide of expropriation. This is not a form of compromise but a way to suggest (what was obvious to many in our cowcatcher assembly of primordials) that socialism might be born from a remorphed liberalism that was based on challenges to capitalism but otherwise was a realization of modern freedoms and rights. That sounds a bit obvious but a close look shows this perspective is absent form the leftist successors to bolshevism, that is the whole nearly braindead left.
Let us grant however that the historical exemplars however we judge them confronted the right at full force and we must ask if the same fate awaits the future as we see in the contracting atmosphere of the defense against couterrevolution, viz. the russian Civil War. The left must find a way to success beyond the construction of covert agencies to defend the revolution, etc, ad nauseam…It is obvious one can fail at the moment of that challenge in practice.
It is worth noting that Thomas Munzer at the dawn of the reformation and of modern revolutionary communism proclaims a communist theme far before the rise of modern democracies. And the English Civil is the cowcatcher for all later broils, including our own.
Somewhere there we see the way the Restoration confused the issues of democracy and the later excess reaction to liberalism that hoped in vain for a total reconstruction after smashing the whole social scene, a project that failed.
We have suggested a way to instead remorph liberalism into a (neo-) communism and that the issue is not so much destroying liberalism, and hence its rights and freedoms, as remorphing its core, but in a context of genuine (revolutionary, but still possibly reformist) postcapitalism in the sense of expropriation and the creation, or recreation, of a Commons.

 Hegel the idealist villain?

The legacy of the debate between materialism and idealism is dated now and springs from the generation of the hegelian aftermath, itself the aftermath of the kantian generation. In many ways Hegel remains a puzzle and his ‘absolute idealism’ remains far more controversial than the kantian ‘transcendental idealism’ which isn’t about the ‘transcendental’ but about the way ‘mind’ is fretted by a series of categories, space/time being examples. It was perhaps inevitable that someone like Hegel should try to respond to Kant whose views ironically resemble in disguise those of something like the Advaita Vedanta of the indic legacy.
To critique this legacy in terms of science was a no-brainer, and yet that gesture backfired, and Marx was a victim of that triumph of scientism in the near wasteland of post-hegelian speculative philosophy.
In an age of quantum mechanics, what to say of string theory, the issue of idealism is not so clear cut as it was to the ‘materialist’ revolution which turned out to be a pyrrhic victory that ends up losing the idea, if not idealism, of ‘freedom’ to the crypto-idealist concepts of causality.
Why cripple socialism with such a complicated debate by trying to enforce one pole of a false duality? It is not the job of socialism to resolve the debates of metaphysics. If socialist futures carry basket-case philosophers to new dialectics, so be it.

Source: The eonic model beyond materialism/idealism – Darwiniana

It is not enough to call yourself a ‘socialist’…

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=democratic+market+neo-communism

Our model of a postcapitalist set of political/economic systems is designed first to address the void of classic marxist discussions of socialism/communism in a void. It is not enough any more to call yourself a socialist waving a flag with that semantic phantom still to this day claimed by North Korea and China, and now by social democratic reformists.

To that core model we then bring the ideas of ecological socialism as a larger dimension of that set of specifications. The potential conflict of ecological and working class issues needs a careful analysis and resolution (not necessarily hard to do).

The longer postcapitalism is delayed the more difficult the remedy and we should really have had a transition to a new system almost at the start of the false dawn of the pseudo-epoch of capitalism. As things stand now the totalitarian domination of capitalism is destined to planetary catastrophe.

News | Historical Materialism

The subject, and internet presence, ‘historical materialism’ is considerable in its scope and yet the entire discipline seems incapable of leading to a focused radical or social democratic path. Marxism is easy to jargonize and over-analyze, with no real result, and little connection with public thinking or with the equally barren fields of sociology, historical or otherwise.
We have pointed here repeatedly to some core problems with ‘histomat’ in terms of its obsessive Marx worship and rote assumptions about the canonical status of his legacy. We have pointed to the shallowness and misfire of economic analysis of world history as an odd fundamentalism, and then to the fallacy of ‘stages of production’ theory, and the failure to produce a viable model of the very socialism/communism projected, very much in a void. The whole legacy of leninism/bolshevism goes almost without critical comment alienating virtually the whole potential public for socialism…
We have suggested a whole series of remedies, among them a divorce with a failed past and a recasting of the socialist legacy that was so dogmatically appropriated to marxist monopoly by Marx himself…

Source: News | Historical Materialism