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.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=The+Anthropocene.pdf

 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 – CounterPunch.org

 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.
pseudo-science
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’”