The need for a new post-marxist set of frameworks…

We have extracted a short blogbook from a longer piece with older archived posts.
The text points the way to a new and simplified approach (we had several here) to a leftist paradigm without the confusions of historical materialism. The booklet is at most a series of notes for a whole book and/or an introduction to World History and the Eonic Effect.
Every scientific theory ends up obsolete and marxism is not exception, but leftists tend to keep it central in a kind fetishism of true believers.
Most of the rest of the marxism is another matter: filled with useful material of one kind or another. But the theoretical confusions of marxism pervade the whole subject and the whole left.
We need to make Marx/Engels historical introductions to a new formulation created in our ‘now’ and relevant to the conditions of current economics, globalization, and science, and with a rewrite introducing ecological socialism as a keynote.

 The left has no historical framework, given the collapse of marxist historicism…

The model of the eonic effect seems perhaps a bit speculative, but its basic empirical content is well-established and at a time when the left is drifting in confusion over its historicist ideology a new and neutral view of history is needed: the eonic effect would make a good choice, reduced to basics, as an outline and taken as a field to reconstruct the issues of capitalism, socialism, and even religious histories still very strong, Continue reading ” The left has no historical framework, given the collapse of marxist historicism…”

 Capital, the door stop, as squinting scholars try to decipher marx’s theories, finally

Who can afford all this? The academic study of marx is another version of vanguardism, and at prices only the bourgeoisie can afford.
Trying ad infinitum to decipher marx has gone on ad finitum and the leftists who will have to create socialism aren’t much the wiser. We need a one page version of all these subjects. Marx’s theories are obscure because in the end they don’t make sense. The same can’t be said of his other writings where he didn’t try so hard: the issue is to be prepared to construct a socialist economy and society and one that is vaster in richness of content than the one-track minds of marxists.

The first installment of Michael Heinrich’s three-volume biography of Karl Marx titled “Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society” is now available from Monthly Review Press. In keeping with MR’s long-time tradition as a movement rather than an academic press, the cloth edition is $34.95 and the eBook is only $19.95.

Source: The Intellectual Development of Karl Marx –

 The preposterous persistence of dialectical materialism…

In reality the reign of dialectical materialism is over: the doctrine has run its course and is promoted by dogmatic marxists oblivious to its history, flaws and counterproductive effect on the public which is not likely to be converted any time soon. The whole idea of dialectic is a faded luxury for the left and belongs to the post-hegelian era when something of the work of that philosopher was to be rescued. But hegel is not really revlevant for the left now, although as a philosopher his place in history remains secure.
The dialectics of leftists is a phantom of the past and the left need a new set of perspectives. The idea that dialectical materialism is somehow meta-science is almost a superstition at this point…

On the bicentennial of his birth, Karl Marx’s ideas are more relevant than ever. While he is perhaps best known for his writings on economics and history, anyone who wishes to have a fully rounded understanding of his method must strive to master dialectical materialism, which itself resulted from an assiduous study and critique of Hegel.Dialectical materialism is the logic of motion, development, and change. By embracing contradiction instead of trying to write it out of reality, dialectics allows Marxists to approach processes as they really are, not as we would like them to be. In this way we can understand and explain the essential class interests at stake in our fight against capitalist exploitation and oppression.At every decisive turning point in history, scientific socialists must go back to basics. Marxist theory represents the synthesized experience, historical memory, and guide to action of the working class. The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism aims to arm the new generation of revolutionary socialists with these essential ideas.

Source: The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism – Marxist Books

‘Iron Cage’ scientism: historical materialism?

Red Forty-eight Group: strategy to neutralize Red Forty-eight Group: strategy to neutralize Iron Cage scientism/pseudo-science

May 6th, 2016 ·

We keep harping on historical materialism, but our logic is sound: a deterministic theory (it is denied that it is such, but…) creates a Iron Cage effect in which autonomy has been sacrificed to theory. And this is the case for the overall Iron Cage mentality of science/scientism, neo-classical economics, darwinian evolutionary theory, and marxism itself. This is one reason we have challenged darwinism here: it represents a subtle mechanization of behavior and culture, this playing into the hands of elites

via social darwinism, and the result is a brand of the kind of ideology of theory that Marx attempted to challenge. But the result sank further into the quicksand.

It would be a cogent revolutionary tactic to exploit this weak spot in the establishment of ‘Big Science’ by seeing this fatal weak spot and moving to seize the high ground of real science. Almost the whole cadre of science and economics are fixated in pseudo-science, an easy target.

The result can be an improved social perspective based on the rich spectrum of resources of the early modern.
Continue reading “‘Iron Cage’ scientism: historical materialism?”

 Marxists should critique and move beyond ‘productive force determinism’

The marxist left has imposed a theoretical narrative on world history, one that is misleading and out of date now. The division into epochs: feudalism, capitalism, communism, doesn’t correspond to the facts and has made the modern version of capitalist economy a formal status it doesn’t deserve. Continue reading ” Marxists should critique and move beyond ‘productive force determinism’”

Critiquing Marx’s s theories…but giving a pass to his empirical studies….

Readers of a blog criticizing Marx from the left get discombobulated and I can sympathize in some ways! The point here is that the criticism is mostly of Marx’s theories which are naive and confused over newtonian causal issues, as are most ‘theories’ of history. After ten years deciphering the ‘eonic effect’ I am rarely if ever impressed by attempts at historical theory. NOONE can get the question right, for reasons the eonic model makes clear, without being another theory. The ‘theory’ of historical materialism and stages of production theory impressed the nineteenth century but seem dated now, a moment in the rise of post-Hegelian positivism and scientism. You can’t reduce history to economic issues, eliminate idealism in favor of old-fashioned materialism, prophesy future communism without defining it, etc… The left cannot transform society with that legacy,  so once that sinks in a new platform must be developed.

It is a dismal legacy, and yet marxists tend to bestow misplaced reverence to a figure who has passed into history.  But marxists could perform a service by simply discarding the theories and focusing on Marx’s empirical work: his thought on issues of class, exploitation, etc, have survived better than his theoretical monstrosities and speak directly to a descriptive perspective. A selection of Marx’s empirical ideas and studies could be a useful summary of the legacy and a way to pass on: a new generation has to stop its misplaced cult worship of a holy founder in the religion of marxism. The issue now is postcapitalism and we need to escape the dead hand of marxist regurgitators, who have botched every opportunity they had to create socialism. It is a horrendous legacy. We can’t afford another bungled marxist attempt to create a world beyond capitalism.

Were marx’s theories to blame?…//Why Did Socialism Fail?
Democratic Market Neo-communism

We have discussed this issue here many times but the author of this piece sees the basic point: the bolshevik era never produced any socialisms at all. The stalinist brand especially was simply a socialist imposter.
There is every possibility for real socialism and in an era of approaching climate calamity we can see that capitalism is coming to an even worse failure than fake socialism. We must figure out where fake socialism went wrong and create the real thing. Part of the problem lies in Marx’s mis-analyis of capitalism and then in his stages of production theory the prophecy of the coming of communism, which he failed to define. The result was that Stalin ended up being the definer. The coming of socialism is not historically invevitable: it must be defined and then created by free agents, not historical forces. We can see that Marx equated capitalism and markets but the two are not the same: we could have socialist/communist markets if we do it right. Continue reading “Were marx’s theories to blame?…//Why Did Socialism Fail?”