Email exchange on Marxism, marxmail…for archive here…

Fwd: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization
From: Nemonemini
Cc: cc to a small group of listmembers
Date: Sun, Sep 26, 2021 8:40 am
I have just completed a short interaction with a list member: j.alan.x responding to a series of questions that I was at first willing to answer
but which suddenly in retrospect seem like a crypto-stalinist vetting by the group or the ‘moderator’ (is this fair?): this is the confusion you create when
you are not on the level with someone who is being ‘moderated’ (censored, or pressured to conform), I would like to know again what’s going
on here in a devious situation of a group that is apparently in a state of post-Proyect confusion.
If I get no answer I will have to assume this was indeed an effort to vet an outsider wishing to contribute to the group but who is likely to not conform
to some intangible standard yet to a high probability a marxist ‘opinion meat grinder’ censor/cancel culture…

Perhaps forget the above and consider the larger question of how anyone could hope to proceed along marxist (or in general any other) lines to a revolutionary
social transformation: if someone dissents on historical materialism and other seemingly now doctrinal issues?

This group has been unfair to me and vice versa, but there is no way to communicate across the confusion created by this ‘cancel’ culture.

In fact, it might help to review the whole Marx legacy and try to find a perspective that can communicate to a general public in total confusion
on all subjects without a Stalinist degeneration. That’s not so simple, but such a group can’t handle someone like, at relatively close range on many issues,
it seems doomed. But the same is true all around.

But I see the point: if historical materialism is a failed perspective, one that came into existence in part to forge a nineteenth century consensus, then the Marxist left
is at risk of being a basket case. That’s why I suggested it might be helpful to open the floodgates to allow many views on not just marxism but the climate, social, capitalist and socialist crisis,
but on the crisis of Marx ‘high level idiots’ going over Niagara Falls. To call people idiots might seem divisive but the charge of idiot is a no-brainer, Gurdjieff had a whole hierarchy
of idiots and toasts to each all along the way. But a sufi like Gurdjieff is so far off the marxist beaten track as to be cancelled at once, if you can cancel the ghost of a dead guru.
Moral: judge not lest you be judged, but you have to be judgemental anyway. But was Gurdjieff really a sufi or just another rogue occult fascist, moderated or not by general sufi consensus.
Check out my other blog, The Gurdjieff Con, and/or a book Debriefing Gurdjieffianity at Amazon. No free pdf.

Closer to home I read of a fascinating interaction of Chris Hedges and David Harvey:

The gap between these two is considerable raising issues of Christianity, Christians, Gandhian non-violence, and
a reformist? ‘Marxist’ scholarship on Capital and the question of its status. Would these two be vetted at Marxmail?
Since they are celebrities probably not. Is that unfair to non-celebrities?
Will the latter be liquidated by the emerging neo-stalinist left as they get in the way of the revolution they seem to suggest
by critiquing capitalism.

etc, etc…
Again, I have made my point, mission accomplished, in citing to the list two books Decoding World History, and The Last Revolution (the latter still unfinished), two books plus others that are already de facto censored by
general culture plus the left. It takes six months to get a reply from Verso, but I doubt wither book would survive their capitalist scrutiny.
The above can also extend to noting that at a time of crisis in evolutionary theory the issue of Darwinism can’t be debated at Marxmail, but
that Marx’s early embrace of Darwin followed an initial suspicion now seen to be right that is was an ‘English ideology’. Shouldn’t Marx’s own views
be moderated?
Again, the issue of 9/11 arises in a crisis of group opinion: since it takes about a half hour on the Internet to find the problems with the
standard account the question arises as to how a socialist group can keep a straight face about a cover up of the genocide of the
War on Terror is it was the result of false flag op from the Deep State/Israel? Deep state, since Trump’s base has purloined the term,
it may be necessary to change terminology.

etc, etc…

In fact, I respect the members of this list but there is no easy road to post-Marx consensus on the left for a postcapitalist future
and as the legacy of Marx founders it is time to find a some sort of path ahead. Into that gap flows the realm of reformist groups
and the rejection of revolution for the chances of placard public protest


—–Original Message—–
From: Nemonemini
To: j.x
Sent: Fri, Sep 24, 2021 12:08 pm
Subject: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization

I wasn’t sure what you were referring to about my earlier post but I will explain as I can.
I just got three books, one each of Stuart Hall, Jodi Dean, and Christian Fuchs.
I am not a marxist but I do think that applies only to Marx’s general theories.
His other thinking on class and ideology works better without his theories.
Marx in utter simplicity, to restate a basic meme, arises in the wake of the French revolution to critique its bourgeois character
and proposes the central place of the proletariat as a critique of that revolution.
Clear enough, but the question of the proletariat has shifted now and in any case
a leftist elite invoking the dictatorship of the proletariat creates the
Leninist dictatorship of marxist intellectuals???
This whole zone needs a good fix, please.
The _theory_ to me is distinct from an empirical study of history instead of the economic theorizing
of historical dynamics that Marx struggled with and never got straight. World history has a complex
and uniquely elusive dynamical variant in the ‘evolution’ category beyond the muddle of Darwin.
Marx had never heard of Sumer or early Dynastic Egypt: the economies of world history need a new model
along with a more enriched view of cultural systems beyond economics
I have taken socialism and (neo-)communism as equivalent more or less (I can adapt to Marx’s
distinction if necessary)
and should actually speak of neo-socialism, the term ‘socialism’ is useful for general discussion
while neo-communism which refers to a complex construct of democracy, market socialism, planning
and a Commons under the expropriation of capital, with a new kind of international.
This model can be taken directly or used as a modeling tool to study the rising complexity of
multi terms taken together. Simply speaking of communism result in confusion.
Marxism is not really needed for socialism but many of its core ideas are useful if they
can evade the false theory of history.
I have my own model of world history as the evolutionary emergence of man and civilization.
This requires a generalized perspective that sees facts and values working together.
The realm of scientism can’t handle this simple requirement.
I can juggle Marxist thinking easily in a larger context but I think that
the left has to molt old skin and start with a new variant of the old without its liabilities.

The model of world history I work with is a universal model that must deal with:
the progression of civilizations, the pattern of evolutionary transitions, all philosophies,
all religions, the history of science, and in that context of ethical, aesthetic, and dynamical systems
and a view of evolution that can see how civilizations evolve.
So the breadth here is very great.

I certainly haven’t studied the whole field but at the same time I don’t have
to consider the whole range of obsolescent thinking.
I think a new post-marxism that liberates itself from theory is needed.
The above includes all possible configurations of civilization, philosophy,
religion, economy, art, etc, and cherry picks only to the extent that a minimums
of tens of thousands of books are relevant and the human mind cannot yet
handle its own theories of historical evolution.
enough for the moment
All the scholars you cite are stuck in the Darwin paradigm which is under collapse
Best to see what’s coming


From: <j.x
To: Nemonemini
Sent: Tue, Sep 21, 2021 11:37 pm
Subject: Re: The discussion of historical materialsim


Just wondering, have you ever thought or called yourself a marxist? I ask because someone like me, and many others on the list and elsewhere, work under the idea of Marxian theory, like folks in genetics work under Darwin’s theory. We think at least some of Marxian theory is worthwhile, but many of us do not call ourselves socialists. Do you consider yourself a socialist? I don’t call myself a Marxist for the same reason Marx didn’t, so I think of myself as a communist. Marxism is necessary, but not sufficient for revolutionary socialist thinking or communism.

Are any of your premises or assumptions built on the work of others? Do you dismiss the work of Marxisan theory or do you engage with the history of ideas, which is essential in having dialogues with others? For me, these things are important in getting others to take your ideas seriously as you make broad generalizations about Marxist cults that are beside the point.

There are plenty of Marxist/anarchist activists and scholars who are not dogmatic and infuse their theory with post structuralism and lots of diverse theories and approaches, so I’m afraid you haven’t looked at the whole field. If you cherry-pick your evidence, then yes, Marxism sects exist. So what? The listserv isn’t one of them. We all have diverse notions of marxian/socialist theory, is that ok or should be all agree with you and follow only your way of thinking? Hope this helps.


On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:08 AM Nemonemini wrote:

To Marxmail

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s