The fallacies of marxism are a great tragedy in world history. The Russian revolution created a tremendous opportunity which was squandered completely via the idiocy of Lenin/Stalin, but more the confusion created by marxist theories. Continue reading “The lost opportunity of the era of bolshevism and its stupidities”
The left is stuck in a kind of marxist religion that forces thinking in a set of dubious ideas. In fact it is almost embarrassingly easy to think of a resolution of the problems created by archaic communism. A real what we call neo-communism to make sure we see that there is no going back is fairly easy to construct in its gist, whatever complications we would face in practice. Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ shows how easy it is in principle to correct the confusing mess of archaeo-communism a la marxism.
Our idea simply brings together many opposites into cooperative conjunction:
our idea is to bring communism and democracy together, balance communism with a dash of anarchism ( low level indifference sector,see the texts), planning with a new kind of socialist market, replace capitalist with socialist entrepreneurs, economic resource pitfalls with ecological thinking (and ecological courts, next to economic courts and labor unions), state capitalism scrapped in favor of a Commons ( to which all are legally entitled), strong authority (in a presidential system of some kind) with the task of guarding the Commons, but no power over general politics or the economy (to prevent state capitalism), a parliamentary system balancing a presidential system, and so on. The minute we bring these opposites in conjunction as a system of checks and balances, along with economic, and liberal style rights, the resolution of most of the problems of stupido-bolshevik-marx/communism fall away, at least in principle. We should note that ‘nature’ has ecological rights against the exploitation of nature resources, etc…
Such an amateurishly simple solution is still light years ahead of stupido-bolshevism but would suffer unforeseen problems of its own, no doubt. But on the level of abstraction it works and could be implemented easily (given revolutionary expropriation of ‘capital’, a big IF!) and would probably work on day one. This set up still has problems with an International, is state-oriented but can develop solutions there in a global context, and must deal with the cancer of covert agencies that control the current american government, the problem of imperialism and military industrial complex as war for profit, and before we forget the question of Israel. Plus other issues. But the solution to the problem is to see that we must construct a neo-communism and can’t assume history will somehow manufacture it for us. This system has the feel of liberalism yet is communism, and the feel of communism yet is in many ways a remorphed liberalism.
I have read 10 books on Lenin but I cannot divine the real facts behind his actions all the way through. By accident I found this book via Google, one that I couldn’t afford but heard of years ago. But who cares, I know from experience that someone trying to set the record staight on Lenin will simply create more confusion. Lih may be right about the early Lenin and his What is to be Done? but the fact remains that the marxist left is at all point armed with wrong interpretation of the whole history from 1900 to the rise of Stalin.
I hope this book will help on some points, but my challenge stands to make some sense of the Bolshevik era…It might be better to leave the whole thing behind and start over with new terminology, e.g. neo-communism instead of communism which turns all comers into idiots…
The quoted passage is typical marxist bullshit. Marx’s delusion that he had created a science was a bad mistake and the result is the useless distinction of utopian and scientific socialism. The utopians get bad rap: the simple requirement of defining what communism should be is omitted as marxist boilerplate takes over and people assume that communism has been defined. To call people ‘utopian’ because they try to define what they are doing in terms of the values needed is the grossest of Marx’s idiotic errors and the result was value-free stalinist ‘science’.
These communist groups are packs of idiots who are currenly put huge obstacles in the way of a true what I would call a ‘neo-communism’ to avoid the tissue of errors taken from Marx by these stalinist dupes.
Scientific socialism as we know it today developed out of the early 19th century critique, by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and their comrades and followers of what they called utopian socialism.The term “utopian” refers to the book Utopia, published in the year 1516 by the 16th Century English philosopher and statesman Sir Thomas More.The utopian socialists expressed beautiful ideas about a better world, but their plans fell short because they were not rooted in the material reality of early industrial Europe and its growing class struggle between capitalists and workers.In the context of the expansion of industry and the industrial proletariat in Europe, Marx and Engels came on the scene.
Source: A brief history of the world communist movement – People’s World
This discussion is reasonable enough but in the final analysis so-called communism isn’t any better than capitalism: we need to define very carefully what we mean by the term and give it a new name so we wont get stuck in past failure.
Continue reading “Why you’re wrong about communism: Here are 7 huge misconceptions about it — and capitalism – “
In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s evil genius matters less than pressures from the ultrarich, US foreign policy, and the ravages of the neoliberal Yeltsin years.
Source: Russia Beyond Supervillainy
A new book on Putin and Russia, reviewed favorably today at the Guardian, Counterpunch and Jacobin suggests an important read and some essential re-analysis of the Putin/Russia phenomenon. Continue reading “blame game: blaming marxism for Putin…//Russia Beyond Supervillainy”