Trying to communicate with marxists is difficult, but I persist in thinking they can repair their flawed framework.
Marx said he wasn’t a marxist so the issue of heresies is more relaxed here…The Marxist formulation is flawed
and won’t work a second time, so the question of some kind of new perspective is critical.
Re: The discussion of historical materialsim
Date: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 1:34 am
I don’t consider myself a Marxist now but I have been studying Marxist texts since the midseventies of the last century when I lived in the east village in New York and read a lot of books on Marxism, with an old Jewish communist coaching me. That’s almost fifty years ago. I have read a huge number of books here. But my views were in a larger context of secular humanist, new age, broad philosophical range with many aspects.
Recently I have tried to produce a critique of Marxism, but without any reactionary overtones: I find Marx’s theories of history to be flawed and taking the edge off of his many other essential contributions.
If you read my Deconding World History or now The Last Revolution (Postcapitalist Futures) you will see where I am coming from. Marx formed his ideas in the 1848 period, and that was a long time ago.
The long quarrel over Hegel was destructive and pushed many to an opposite extreme of reductionist science and the obsessive and useless debate over idealism and materialism.
The left should have stepped back to Kant and the school of Kantian ethical socialism emerged from that, in many ways a far better way to formulate a path to socialism.
Marx’s thinking as historical materialism and ‘stages of production’ theory to me are lead weights dragging Marxists down and confusing them at the key point of revolutionary action.
I have written extensively in books and at my blog about a way to navigate through Marx, and much else, toward the parts that work without the baggage of his views on history and economics.
It is right that I should be critical of historical materialism. It belongs to another age and has probably antagonized a billion once potential persons disposed toward socialism.
I have proposed a new view of history in Decoding World History with a simple way to replace theories with simple chronologies.In the Last Revolution I offer a mini-manifesto
and a new model of socialism as ‘democratic market neo-communism’, a much simpler way to construct a socialism system. I have never met a Marxist who knew what he was talking about
and the reason is that Marx’s ideas are too complicated and were never really completed, as a glance at the ruins of the volumes of Capital make obvious. Behind the public image, Marx ended up
in writer’s block unable to finish his work as Engels stood by tearing his hair.
My model of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ (with an addition of eco-socialist content to a general framework) is ultra simple in essence, whatever the complications of realization. But it is balanced
between communism (neo-), democracy (liberalism), planning and socialist markets, etc… Cf discussions in The Last Revolution, and multiple other books.
I am also a critic of Darwinism, and my Descent of Man Revisited shows a way out and has thousands of download. I am also a critique of 9/11 propaganda and it is sad that marxists who are oftern acute on
ideological hypnosis, are stuck on the most notorious false flag op of all time.
I have created a mockup of a kind of new left: the Redfortyeight Group, a model for a new kind of movement toward socialism, my democratic market neo-communism. .
The above combination of views creates a kind of triple cancel effect and as you can see as it swings into action at once around Marxists, and then again, academic biologists, Darwinists, and the 9/11 con men
like Chomsky who I am suspicious of as a covert plant on the left. He is far too smart to be confused by 9/11, so what is his game, produces a dead conformity.
I have a very useful model of world history in my various books, and deserve credit for that as solving one of the key problems for a real theory of evolution,
but all you get from that is the excommunication of the professors, who are mostly frauds.
We live in the new world of POD and the ability to publish books outside the propaganda brainwashing of the general consensus which tends to overlap with Marxism and weaken its thrust.
I am critical because to an outsider like me the Marx group is too constricted by its own ideological legacies. We need some Marxists to walk out the door into a new kind of revolutionary socialism/communism,
one that can be popular again as in the early second international. Marxists have missed the boat at this terrible moment of doom that just maybe beyond redemption.
That’s enough. It seems to me that the Marxists have stalled the left, and done that for everyone else. We need a revolutionary movement but don’t have one because any such hope is bolloxed by
the Marx monopoly. So I give it a shot: try to challenge the rigid world created by the authoritarian Marx who created a monopoly of socialism/communism as thought systems, and this no longer works.
Thanks for asking for some info. But I have provided resources on all this but you still ask me if I am a Marxist. I think despite my criticisms the Marx milieu could adapt to a new future and create a real path
to socialism, but in its present form it is stalled and stuck in the past. Look at the Common Dreams world: this Friday the Sunrise Group with Greta Thunberg will have another demonstration. These groups, which are
at their reformist limits nonetheless are thriving and vigorous, but I fear a heavier brand is needed. But the Marxists act as if they were licked. They wouldn’t be able to show their face in public demonstrate in the streets any more (in the US). The reason is .obvious. My ‘DMNC’ package is a hybrid, but not a compromise: remorph liberalism into (neo-)communism, and vice versa. A fast route that is real communism but free of all the crypto-stalinist madness of
the older versions.
That’s enough. I critique Marxists, without being one, but the brand called ‘democratic market neo-communism’ goes one better than the now obsolete thinking of Marx (referring to historical/economic issues, the rest
of his corpus being often still relevant). If I sound upset it is because we just now passed the point of no return without a peep from the Marx world which should have recreated itself in 1989 and been out front in a
challenge to what’s going on.
It would have been nice to have shared this with the group.