We have addressed this issue multiple times here and our stance is a generalized revolutionary framework that is in fact open to reformists with some warnings. But the issue of Marx is very confusing. We have critiqued his theories, but left much of his legacy intact. In any case, we cannot hope to simply quote Marx all the way into a revolution.
We must start from scratch with a new framework. Historical materialism is a dated effort that undermined its own project and set marxists up for endless refutations. Who needs it?
We need recipes for socialism, e.g. our ‘democratic market neo-communism’, not theories of history or economic obsessions about ‘stages of production’ in history. The main point is that capitalism isn’t a stage of history. Marx’s progression of epochs doesn’t work. The real ‘epoch’ is simply modernity and some way to reconcile the industrial revolution and the instruments of capitalism to a new socialist entity, unfortunately undefined by most leftists.
We may not agree with Marx’s theory of history but beyond that his thinking is cogent enough. The issue of revolution remains, it is after all the basis of modern freedom and doesn’t require a Marx’s theory of revolution. But revolutions are the invention of bourgeois democrats in the early modern. The whole point with Marx is that we need to consider that matrix in terms of its capitalism capture and create a real democracy and a new kind of economy with socialism. The bolshevik era in no way realized any of that, so the future remains a question. But the revolutionary option emerges from the bourgeois revolutions themselves and even as we move to upgrades and and attempts to truly fulfill them we need to consider the danger of creating monstrosities like Stalinism. In our thinking a neo-communism must emerge from liberalism and mimic its outline but in a new context that moves toward postacapitalism without
the deviations of stalinist bolshevism.
It is not as hard as we might think, in principle, and marxists have produced a theory that is incomprehensible. Something simpler and clearer is enough along, of course, with the rare to rarer opportunity to produce a result, a revolutionary situation. Marxism so confused its adherents that their efforts ended up in a mess. But a new clarity and a restart just might provide the answer dimly foretold long before Marx in the early modern…
The numbers and varieties of activists struggling to build a new society are uncountable, from Leninists to anarchists to left-liberals and organizers not committed to ideological labels. Amidst all this ferment, however, one thing seems lacking: a compelling theoretical framework to explain how corporate capitalism can possibly give way to an economically democratic, ecologically sustainable society. How, precisely, is that supposed to happen? Which strategies are better and which worse for achieving this end—an end that may well, indeed, seem utopian, given the miserable state of the world? What role, for instance, does the venerable tradition of Marxism play in understanding how we might realize our goals? Marx, after all, had a conception of revolution, which he bequeathed to subsequent generations. Should it be embraced, rejected, or modified?