Communicating incommunicado with marxmail listserv gang…

historical materialism? Re: A Marxist cult?
From: Nemonemini
Cc: <1999wildcat@ etc, cc addresses deleted…)
Date: Fri, Sep 17, 2021 11:15 am
You say I am subscribed but under moderation, which means I am not subscribed really, since I can't post anything and end up with bits and pieces on the list that are out of context.
I tried to send some of the material to a few list members individually just to make the point that what I post is never seen by anyone: the last time I will do this, since some object. In effect, I can only toe the line or be moderated, i.e. silenced.
This has become a waste of time and one more indication of a gulf of communication. Marxists obviously are too closed into a cult mindset over Marxist dogma to consider their position.
In any case, this whole discussion ends up on my blog, and a marxmail scandal will be open to the publican Googled.

I really don’t think marxism in its current form will ever be able to construct socialism that isn’t Stalinist. I wish I could repair this situation but I can’t.
Culture in American has moved on. There are more Buddhists (and Sufis) by far in the US now than Marxists and few of those New Agers see their situation in what
I have exposed as a hidden fascism: the left was eaten alive by occult fascists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century (besides Hitler, the case of Mussolini comes to mind, he was actually a socialist at one point), a point well known (and misunderstood) by many nazis, but no historical materialist
had a clue to what was happening. Between arch reactionaries like Ouspensky and his totally mediocre but dangerous imitators there is a continuous lineage of insidious idiocy.

New age ‘book of the dead’ rackets and (buddhist/sufi) fascist gurus

This milieu is incomprehensible to historical materialists.
Historical materialism is absurdly incapable of dealing with culture as it is moving on. The result would be a massacre. For that matter, the general culture is almost worse.
Marx made a great contribution to secular humanism but the result is confused now: extreme scientism is no good either.
The issue of religion still lingers. I am not religious nor am I an historical materialist,
and like so many ‘homeless’ in general culture and unable to work with marxists.
Marxists are smart people,they can adapt to a new culture. But mostly they won’t.

Again I have made my point, up to a point. I have produced a lot of critiques of Marxism in the last few years.
I should leave it at all, mindful that ‘mission accomplished’ wasn’t quite accomplished.
The reality is there is no group that can construct socialism at his point and the revolutionary issue lingers.

Postcapitalist futures: online texts

You have clarified that I am subscribed but under moderation.I had forgotten that you said that, thanks. I suggested already that I could keep a low profile on the list and post as relevant, but to answer any feedback or requests for comment.
I have already made my point with links to various materials, mission accomplished. I was initially invited by Project to subscribe in 2001 or so and can’t remember if I drifted away or was unsubscribed. I have instead followed this list using the old ‘hundred posts’ page for decades because for a blogger it is an invaluable source of references, links, and discussion. My blog has cited material from Marxmail at least once a week for more than a decade. I have resources for the study of history and evolution, and the possibility of socialist transformation (read revolutionary or reformist) in a variant dialectic than standard Marxism. As we see communication can backfire The old framework from the Second International and/or Leninism doesn’t look like it will work twice. The basics need a change, perhaps. Some will resist that because they worry rightly that the canon will disintegrate with too many critics who can’t assess what’s relevant or not. Marx’s discipline was needed early on, but now the left is under great tension because the world is sliding into chaos and nobody can do anything. So a new approach is essential. One thing I can do is to provide a new take on evolution and history, but that is still controversial. You have enough controversies already, but i don recommend a look. The old economic fundamentalism doesn’t really work. How to proceed? I have suggested a new model of socialism, with the sense that the time has come to obviate the public’s suspicion of Marxism with an openly specified plan for the future. The old distinction of utopian and scientific doesn’t quite work, any more. But people will respond if they know what they can expect from a socialist transformation if it can provide some kind of economic relief from the increasingly fascist neoliberal tide, which is slowly starting to recede. A new kind of socialist economy is essential, but nobody can provide an idea of that.
So the opportunity is emerging but it requires a new language and perspective. At Alan Woods is producing a book on philosophy trying to claim that dialectical materialism is the final summit in the philosophical tradition. Really? I haven’t the heart to critique him, another heartbroken Marxist derelict. But if the left/marxists could revamp their subject they could really pull ahead of current deadbeat philosophy, but not I fear with dialectical materialism (I have a booklet on that: Samkhya: Ancient and Modern, the question of dialectic is very tricky). The world of Greta Thunberg and the enthusiastic Gandhians at Common Dreams are going to end up needing help from revolutionary thinkingso it would help to not spout cliches and marxist boilerplate at the coming crisis where those who are ready will suddenly inherit a sinking ship. You can’t spout Lenin to Americans and expect a hearing. I have been critical in that regard but do have respect for Marx and Marxists who do hols a card that can be played here.
regards, JL/nemonemini


—–Original Message—–
From: Les Schaffer
To: Mark Lause
Cc: Nemonemini ; John Reimann ; Michael Meeropol ; Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo ; Tristan Sloughter ; Farans Kalosar ;;; Jeffrey Masko ; John Obrien
Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2021 10:27 am
Subject: Re: A Marxist cult?

A point of order, John is subscribed but on moderation. Until I sort out who can handle list moderation chores with me I’m on the job and slow to deal with stuff like this. I’m trying to channel Lou and how he’d handle the “we need something newer than Marxism” subject. I’ll be swayed to approve similar posts if I see the list engages with and benefits from these submissions.

I suggest John clarify how he wants to engage with Marxmail. If his goal is to invite people to his own blog then say so. If his goal is to initiate debate on Marxmail in a way that is relevant to the stated purpose of the list as Lou established it, the get on with it. If his goal is to say Marxism is dead and something new is needed, that’s already been established.

I agree with Mark that this is an issue between John and the Marxmail list moderator(s). I shan’t detain you all further.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s