A last email to marxmail

Re: The discussion of historical materialsim
From: Nemonemini
To: marxmail@groups.io
Cc: multiple cc’d subscribers at marxlist
Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2021 1:30 pm
This will be censored, so I will send it around so that some are aware they are being deprived of a discussion I think is important.
It is a pity nothing can seemingly be done with the current Marxist paradigm. But I can see no alternative.

Here’s one last attempt to communicate a critical Marxism for the times. In its current form Marxism has crippled the left and the results are visible in the way it is stalled as far as social action is concerned.
I would say (and have hundreds of essay posts at redfortyeight.com with a book archiving several years of its posts) that Marxist create cognitive dissonance in using the general terminology shared by China,
and North Korea and umpteen other Marxist and Leninist groups. The general public has no idea where Marxists are coming from and find few indications the whole range can even critique Stalinism, what to say of Leninism,
and bolshevism in general. That disorganization is a block for most newcomers and the general public.It is essential to start over and carefully lay a ground work that can point to what is intended without any reference to the Marxist legacy. The term ‘marxism’ is part of a cult of personality of Marx and is dated now. Continue reading “A last email to marxmail”

Toward an New Communist Manifesto

The legacy of the great Manifesto echoes to this day and yet if we must assert this there is a problem: it needs as a text promotion and does not reverberate anymore and is at best a relic for the left.
This statement might be complete nonsense but the fact remains that at a time of global crisis and capitalist tragic finale, the left is marginalized and unable to state the problem properly.
But the great Manifesto is just that: a piece of propaganda with a special moment of eloquence. But it may or may not point to a larger frame of reference that really captures the issues of capitalism. We need however to retreat over and over to this work and its moment because after 1848 the thinking of Marx began to shift to a result that is no longer very effective or very clear. Between the great Manifesto and the fragmentary obscurities of Capital there is a strange contradiction.

Let’s consider then the great moment of this text but be able to approach the overall legacy of Marxism critically and ask if it is able to generate a real movement of transformation that can grapple with the crisis at hand.

Yolanda Díaz, labor minister in Spain’s first left-wing coalition since the 1930s, writes on why The Communist Manifesto is still today the sharpest critique of capitalist society.

Source: The Communist Manifesto Is Still Haunting the Powerful

Marxmail, some info, and a new left

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
From: Nemonemini
To: j.x
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. Continue reading “Marxmail, some info, and a new left”

To Marxmail – a further interaction///shock treatment for deadbeat Marxists going nowhere and running out of time//Marx and Engels: dumb and dumber

The discussion of historical materialsim
From: Nemonemini <nemonemini@aol.com>
To: j.aln, etc,
Cc: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io>
Date: Tue, Sep 21, 2021 2:08 pm

Thanks for your email to me. But after what you said the fact remains that almost all my
posts are moderated out. (I find the software confusing because I have no idea what’s posted
in fact, mostly nothing. I replied to you via the post on historical materialism, but you may not see it.)
The issue of cults refers to Marxists in general, not this list.
All I meant was that discourse going back to the nineteenth century is dated, and incapable of
revision or any real discussion because it is dogmatically fixed.
Trying to communicate with a group like this could break the deadlock, but the odds are
against it due to the rigidity of the discourse. I have met hundreds of stranded leftists who
would like to do something realistic on the left but who are unable to interact with the mass of
religious believers in marxism. It is a heartbreaking situation.
There are dozens of socialist and communist marxist groups on the web, and not a single one
is going anywhere. Alan Woods at marxixsm.com is writing a book on the history of philosophy
climaxing in Dialectical Materialism. Egad. How can anyone think at this point that they can lead the
left with such a idiotic pastiche of fallacies?


Thanks for this reply and also to Hari Kumar for his kind response. I am sorry for the confusion over the issues cited and the cc messages to group members. The question of cultism can be set aside…

Source: To Marxmail – 1848+: The End(s) of History

To Marxmail

Thanks for this reply and also to Hari Kumar for his kind response. I am sorry for the confusion over the issues cited and the cc messages to group members. The question of cultism can be set aside save to note that the debates over 9/11 and evolution won’t go away. The question of historical materialism requires some commentary. I have been following this list for a long time without being able to contribute, but recently I saw an opening and have taken that up controversially. as it seems. I have written a short book The Last Revolution at high speed to move into this opening. Continue reading “To Marxmail”

Communicating incommunicado with marxmail listserv gang…

historical materialism? Re: A Marxist cult?
From: Nemonemini
To: marxmail@groups.io
Cc: 1999wildcat@gmail.com <1999wildcat@ etc, cc addresses deleted…)
Date: Fri, Sep 17, 2021 11:15 am
You say I am subscribed but under moderation, which means I am not subscribed really, since I can't post anything and end up with bits and pieces on the list that are out of context.
I tried to send some of the material to a few list members individually just to make the point that what I post is never seen by anyone: the last time I will do this, since some object. In effect, I can only toe the line or be moderated, i.e. silenced.
This has become a waste of time and one more indication of a gulf of communication. Marxists obviously are too closed into a cult mindset over Marxist dogma to consider their position.
In any case, this whole discussion ends up on my blog, and a marxmail scandal will be open to the publican Googled.
Continue reading “Communicating incommunicado with marxmail listserv gang…”

Beyond the flawed Marxism to a new socialism: we were running out of time, now out of time?

postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021: The Last Revolution

I have been following Marxmail for decades without being able to contribute, then suddenly was able to post after Proyect’s passing. (He had actually and graciously allowed me to join the list in 2000 after being unsubbed by the old Pen-l, but that didn’t last long). But within days I was (apparently) unsubbed (I can’t figure out my status).

It is ‘my fault’ for rapidly (since I suspected this would happen) tossing taboo subjects into the mix: balling Marxists out over 9/11, (Darwinism, ran out time, but many posts here on left and that theory), Marx’s flawed theories of history. But I got a lot of links onto the list, and people are reading The Last Revolution, link above. So maybe, success?

I rushed that book to a usable but unfinished PDF form instead of a paperback to post on it on Marmail. I apologize for its rough spots but it makes its point more or less, and actually is better very short and as a PDF. The modern world has a huge tribe of leftist Marxists who are ideologically paraplegic given the confusions of Marxism. And the charge that it is really that ‘ism’ that led to Stalinism is unfair, but only up to a point.
My diagnosis/opinion is Marxism post Bolshevism has to reinvent itself (and drop the cult of personality in its Marx-ism name), consider the implications of ‘smashing the bourgeois state’. Instead, it would work better along the lines of my idea of (eco-socialist) ‘democratic market neo-communism’. ( I use the terms socialism, (neo-)communism interchangeably. This is not reformist compromise but a shift in reference to a four-term system, which is four times more complex than the one-term, but in a way simpler for that same reason. It can’t veer off into Stalinism, one would hope, because a democracy is not a democracy if it is not socialist (i.e. strong equality and shared resources and economic rights, etc…), and a socialism is not socialism if it is not democratic. With similar thinking about BOTH markets and planning (this time ‘socialist’ markets based on a Commons where capitalists now managers license resources from the Commons). This kind of system will work if a liberals system works. Marx made the whole question too complicated and his work has confused every generation of Marxists since.

It comes with a catch: you must expropriate (large-scale resources and Capital into a Commons, which is not State Capitalism)
Using this approach, Bolshevism was not a communism at all because it had no democracy. Period, in this four-term system. This kind of fail-safe would make it very easy to create a postcapitalist system that is really viable, subject to the ‘catch’. Note that both the US and China (and all other cases) are actually malformed versions of the above model which applies to all cases in theory. The US if you look close has some shared resources, but no socialist markets, etc…China has actually added (not socialist) markets to its still pseudo-communism, but has no democracy, etc,….

So, guess what, the US is not a democracy because it is not socialist. Thousands of critics have made the point in their own way for over a century, so the idea is not so strange. Capitalism has coopted democracy.

It may be too late to recast the system, by reform or revolution, but then we are doomed to go over Niagara Falls in a fireball of global warming.
Consider the issue of private property, that is Capital. To allow Exxon-Mobil et al. to own natural resources as private property was seen as unjust at the start but it has now become malevolent. The case of Exxon is that they knew in the seventies of the last century that they were doing something dangerous, but they suppressed their own research and still to this day are indifferent to their own reckless crime against humanity. Right now in the news of the Biden era bill Exxon is in the background trying to move one of its paid-for dummies in Congress to sabotage a last chance for some action on climate change. If you still believe in private property for resources like oil you may be a hopeless dummy, very much the American type.

Americans need to face reality: idiots! Idiots with the power to destroy a planet. Their manipulated stupidity is simply the way capitalism has always destroyed democracy. The danger was seen early on by the first socialists, taken up by Marx/Engels who took over and then monopolized the whole subject, but their mistakes have proven a curse and the failure of Bolshevism was always ominous: capitalism is now so entrenched and its victims so willingly brainwashed that it could be too late. The Last Revolution refers to the era of 1848 and its failed revolutions, with Marx/Engels very much in the mix. The socialists spoke then of the Last Revolution and their ‘prophecy’ should prove to be just that if we wish to survive. But this ‘revolution’ can in principle be reformist, because a reformist project can in theory makes constitutional changes.

Let us note that FDR-ism was trying to invent our DMNC model, but his New Deal still falls short. If only the (pseudo-) communists of that era, very much in play ca. the FDR constellation, could have had a better platform. But the Bolsheviks lurking in the background blocked anything beyond FDR-ism from happening.
Note again our point: Bolshevism was NOT communism because it had no democracy. And no ‘socialist markets’.
We should note also that our model of DMNC or ‘Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2) is not about state capitalism, but a Commons, with its own legal checks and balances. Fake Bolsheviss with their private dachas controlling ‘state capitalism’ could never arise in a DMNC (with an eco-socialism in the mix). And so on.
It would have been relatively easy to set up such a system far earlier but the legacy of Marxism confused thinking, in fact, it was the lack of any thinking, since Marx refused to predict the future with anything specific.
Marx’s theories of history are the problem. Much of his other thinking is still very cogent. But the failure to model communism/socialism in specifies proved fatal.
The same could happen with our superior model: maybe still not complex enough.

We should cite Decoding World History because it offers a very simple outline of world history instead of the false economic fundamentalism of Marx.

postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021
Decoding World History_ED1

Two blog posts at Marxmail /repost

Sure enough, the first link was suppressed


My two posts with links, plus CP article link (below) were posted at Marxmail.io! Good…

who’s the bigger obstacle to socialism, the CIA or the cadre of marx idiots?…//Marx, the Paris Commune; socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21

Lies About How the Attack on Afghanistan Started


Two blog posts at Marxmail

My two posts with links, plus CP article link (below) were posted at Marxmail.io! Good…

who’s the bigger obstacle to socialism, the CIA or the cadre of marx idiots?…//Marx, the Paris Commune; socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21

Lies About How the Attack on Afghanistan Started


who’s the bigger obstacle to socialism, the CIA or the cadre of marx idiots?…//Marx, the Paris Commune; socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21

Two Manifestos

A battle for the soul of socialism.

Source: Marx, the Paris Commune & socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21


A fascinating article but still the problem remains that socialism has nothing but a confused hodgepodge of ideas its proponents can never realize or clarify. What is the problem? Socialism should have come into existence in the generation of its birth after the take-off of capitalism. Its chances now are against a colossus of pseudo-democratic oligarchic mafias armed with massive armaments/armies, covert agencies specialized in defeating revolt/dissent, and an economic system so labyrinthine that ordinary notions of socialism cannot correctly analyze. Marx’s influence is confusing to all later adherents who struggle to grasp the germano-hegelian jargon swamp that Marx bequeathed to followers for whom he had a hidden contempt, as his remarkable treatment of Weitling reminds us. Such a system is elitist all over again, save that the elite itself can’t figure out Marx. The clear failure of Marx’s theories of history next to his often brilliant extra-systematic insights again confuses the faithful who have lost the ability to critique and therefore understand anything of the now useless baggage of marxist ideology to replace the capitalist. Marx’s combination of hyperintelligence, arrogant domination, and feckless science muddle has created a rogue elephant on the loose. To be sure, Marx struggled to create a systematic corpus for an exodus from his castigated ‘utopian’ socialist muddle of early socialism and to make it a canon that could exert authority against a wasteland of stray ‘socailisms’, but that strategy can’t make critical errors and has to get it right the first time or the result is not the science Marx proclaimed but still another brand of ‘utopian’ tinkertoys that at least offer a pool of variant DNA, sadly dismissed and put out of existence. Marx’s flawed system then surged in the Second International, but failing in all cases to find a venue, save in the anomalous case of Bolshevism. Lenin realized however that socialism could start anywhere anytime and pressed on with the Russian anomaly,but the hidden tragic flaws of Marx’s system derailed the whole attempt as it devolved into Stalinism.
We have a host of suggestions here, but basically, it might help to leave behind ‘theory’ in the sense of science. There are no sciences of society, sociology, psychology, or even evolution. From basic science, physics to biochemistry, the buck stops just around the evolutionary zone where the failure of theory is beyond even the awareness of biologists. And,sure enough, Marxism added a further cement block to drag it down, Darwinism, turning natural selection into a genocidal ‘class war’ weapon. To be sure, Marx had a brilliant analysis, which doesn’t require his Big Theory, of the way the factor of bourgeois domination and capitalism seep into and take over ‘democracy’. But the case of the US Rebs, which fall under that critique, nonetheless shows an early path attempting democracy (with hints of democratic socialism manque in its stunning focus on equality, however soon vitiated, unprecedented for its time).
The only revolution that really succeeded was the humble revolt of the American Rebs, nowhere near as smart, or smart ass, as Marx who made a total mess where the Rebs actually produced (serendipitously perhaps) a republic, a later diagnosed as bourgeois revolution with a strange democratizing potential, despite the near stealth anti-democratic elements foisted on the experiment by its elite slaveholders: the issue of slavery fairly well scotches the effort that looks ridiculous in retrospect but which shows a case where dirt farmers at least brought a revolution to term and showed more intelligent any of the nutjob marxists who come later.
The moral then is to consider the core idea of a republic quite compatible with a socialist brand, and then consider how it can realize increasing democracy as it manifests a socialist music/economics. It has a key obstacle the early Rebs didn’t have: the need to contain capital in a socialist container instead of the let-be/laissez-faire that made a revolution much easier in its outcome sequence. But the problem is not beyond solution: a simple requirement that ‘capital’/property at high level be annexed into a Commons, leaving the rest as is would be a minimal version of socialism that could be realized easily once the coming crisis of capitalism is seen finally for what it is. That means, no more Exxons and all such macro-capital formations. The lower level can by and large be left as is.
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ shows how easy it is to construct a variant of liberalism as a socialism/commnunism, dispensing with Marx’s distinction of the two. Such simple recipes could work fine, until Marxists get a hold of them.https://redfortyeight.com/2021/09/05/whos-the-bigger-obstacle-to-socialism-the-cia-or-the-cadre-of-marx-idiots-marx-the-paris-commune-socialisms-two-souls-what-liberation-are-we-fighting-for-rs21/ link sent to marxmail, obviously will be suppressed.

Two Manifestos

A battle for the soul of socialism.

Source: Marx, the Paris Commune & socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21