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”
At a time of crisis in the capitalist system the left is not ready to produce a significant result: every opportunity on the left has resulted in failure because the marxist conceptual basis is flawed.
Continue reading “Search Results for “calculation debate” – 1848: The Ends of History”
The framework of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is flexible and open but it requires seeing the reality of what is happening to human ecology in the steady expropriation of all human/planetary resources by global elites. The current realm of the activist left is close to a joke in the way it waves flags and gestures slogans but treadmills in the growing impotence of all forms of radicalism that has proceeded apace in the last generation. The DMNC formula is different from standard archaeo-communist ideologies: it points to the need for a Commons to prevent the outcome of state capitalism. At some point the crisis of capitalism and climate change is going to make revolutionary options the same as evolutionary tactics. We can first simply make a declaration of the creation of a Commons and move to establish the gateway to postcapitalism.
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”
I want to start by thanking Luigi Chiaro and President Valenti of Progetto Formazione Continua for the opportunity to be here this evening to speak and exchan
Reading this account of GM’s incompetent and venal management it suddenly becomes obvious that, we won’t just throw out the term ‘socialist’ but stick to our renamed version, and after the endless diatribes against inefficient socialism, something like our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ could easily resolve the problems of a prime capitalist corporation. The capitalists have lost the ability to ‘do their own thing’ and are floundering in pseudo-capitalist degenerations of the genre.
Our DMNC would allow several possibilities: a planned version, but better yet a ‘market’ version but one in the context of a Commons: such an entity could be run by a neo-communist entrepreneur using licensed resources and/or a managerial group, with mixed planning interactions, it would have any number of labor resolutions from socialist unions to a cooperative subset and would carefully mediate the issue of layoffs, if any, giving guarantees of transitional subsistence and guarantees of future employment. The result would fulfill all the characteristics of a capitalist version but in a far more intelligent version that would be subject to ecological law. And so on: this portrait of GM is revealing. Socialists with half a brain could to this as well as the capitalists. This is not state capitalist or bureaucratic command socialism, but a hybrid of the DMNC type.
Note: marxists would be unable to carry out this project and would immeditely override the the subtle difference from conventional socialist nonesense. Marxist have not done their homework, are confused about planning and markets and would immediately induce failure in the above….
Our ideas of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ are an attempt to be specific about proposals for a ‘communist’ system. Continue reading “marxists/marx blindsided by ‘calculation debate’….//selections from Democratic Market Neo-communism – “
What a hopeless foundation for attempts to create a new society! We have critiqued Marx’s claims for science, but the quagmire of philosophic inderterminacy is an equal liability. Hegel and the source of dialectic make a fascinating historical exploration, but how on earth did making sense of this set of enigmas become the foundation for attempts to lead beyond capitalism? The result has been the whole garbage of dialectical materialism, material dialectic, and claims for a foundational science (with Hegelian whispers) that doesn’t exist. It is a failed strategy. To try and repeat it is lunacy. And the public won’t listen.
Schopenhauer made the claim/jibe that everyone who studied Hegel was confused for life and lost the power of thought. It seems so when reviewing marxism.
The crisis of capitalism requires something practical and free of attempts at the critical moment to be distracted by the subtleties of philosophy dressed up as scientism, and vice versa. The result here is that marxists have no clear program and no practical plan of action. And every student of the subject ends up confused.
Their theories contributed to the downfall of bolshevism and turned the idea of communism into an arcane mystery that must be elucidated by a cadre of experts who in fact are as confused as the plebs with their theories are designed to control the working class with a priestly arcana.
The american rebs, in their bourgeois democratic finery, at least produced a successful revolution, however limited. Their troopers needed no theory to grasp the basics of a new republican, soon democratic, sort of, politics. If they had had to study something as arcane as marxism we would never have had the american experiment.
In the second part of his new introduction to The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism, Alan Woods explains some of the fundamentals of the Hegelian dialectical method and how these apply to both the natural world and human society. He also details how Marx masterfully applied the dialectical materialist method to his study of capitalism, and in so doing laid bare its inherent contradictions.
R48G: capitalism is not a stage of (economic) history: marxist production theory is misleading and making the problem worse…did Marx/Engels fumble the ball? April 5th, 2017 •