The ‘neo-‘ is essential: the left is stuck in its past, of failure. Talking to a Marxist at this point it is unclear to what he is referring to, Bolshevism/Stalinism, Chinese communism, or what? North Korea… Does the left really want to be named by the same label?
The left has been flatlined for decades and that signals clearly that the old left is dead. But socialism/communism are real categories independent of their Marxist ‘capture’. Marx solved a problem for the early nineteenth century: rescue socialism from its incoherence but in many ways he succeeded too well. And then he refused to specify the details of the abstractions in place. What’s wrong here? It is not easy to figure out Marx but I have for several years considered that his great achievements were clouded by bad theory. And science manque. Many have pointed that out for over a century, too often in way that a fixed cadre will simply dismiss. But the final now or never point is nearing along with social collapse and who knows what….If you study the eonic effect you spot the flaws in Marx’s theories very quickly.
The dilemma is tricky: if you critique Marx you end up usually in a shallow reformism, but what is needed is what Marx got right, relabelled and completed in a new way.
And some sanity on economics. If Marxists had skipped historical materialism and concentrated on a socialist economy that works without theory they could have devastated capitalist pretensions. Instead Marx handed capitalists a pseudo-science that capitalists instead of being critiqued were able to criticize ad infinitum, target practice.
…more to say here, but enough for now…It is too bad Marx missed the coming marginalist economics. Imagine his wrath confronted with the junk science of neo-classicl economics
Source: Neo-communism – Darwiniana