Why do alternatives have to be Marxist? The old dilemma of reformist versus revolutionary is real enough, but if we enforce a Marxist label the results are going to be the same old tired legacy. Let’s be clear: marxist revolutionary slogans can’t point to anything that has worked.
Marxism has been under critique here, starting with Marx’s theories of history which are not useful anymore. The left suffers from Marx domination and obsession and can’t think clearly about anything unless it follows the Marx canon. That wouldn’t be so bad if the Marxists could really communicate to a public, but it seems no longer able to do so.
Marx is so revered that noone quite realizes how bad his basic theory is. Stages of production theory is really poor stuff, and it is strange anyone ever subscribed to it.
We weren’t listed as an alternative to Jacobin, which isn’t surprising in the cancel culture of Marxist deadbeats: in twenty years of online leftist discourse, I have never once had a good word or even a hello from anyone in the closed cult of the Marxist cadre. They are almost unbelievably closed in. One doesn’t need to communicate with such in any case. The left needs a new framework, and a new generation able to think differently yet committed to socialism in a real way. But just shouting out the slogans isn’t enough. We have a post yesterday about an interesting article (from Jacobin) about Oscar Lange and a whole sideline of leftists who tried to figure through the problems of socialist economies. The older left is not capable of any of that and would end up Stalinist all over again.
To win over a new public the left has to start over and think through to a definition what they propose with some kind of resolution of the core problems with marxism.