Profits Over People: Why Weren’t the Vaccine Manufacturers Nationalized? 

On April 6, 1917, the day the Senate ratified the declaration of war with Germany, Pres. Woodrow Wilson exercised a provision of the Radio Act of 1912 that enabled nationalization during a war; the Navy physically acquired radio companies, consolidated them and broke patents to stimulate innovation; it also took over around 50 commercial radio stations and closed down the rest of them (along with all amateur radio operators).

Source: Profits Over People: Why Weren’t the Vaccine Manufacturers Nationalized? –

Thomas Piketty: The Making of a Socialist  

Drawing on his virtuoso knowledge of historical economic statistics, he demonstrated something close to an iron law of capitalism. Wealth concentrates because the return on capital tends to exceed the general rate of economic growth. Since income broadly tracks wealth, economies become relentlessly more unequal over time. Piketty demonstrated this pattern in all major nations and at all historic periods for at least 200 years, with one notable exception — the mid-20th century, when income and wealth in Europe and the United States became more equal.

Source: Thomas Piketty: The Making of a Socialist | Portside

Thomas Piketty: The Making of a Socialist 

The French economist Thomas Piketty came to prominence with his 2014 book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century.” The title was a deliberate echo of Marx’s “Capital,” though Piketty was far from a Marxist. Drawing on his virtuoso knowledge of historical economic statistics, he demonstrated something close to an iron law of capitalism.

Source: Thomas Piketty: The Making of a Socialist | Portside

Rethinking Progress in a Time of Crisis 

Our DMNC model also distinguishes ‘market economy’ and ‘capitalist economy’…

Contrary to popular myth, a capitalist economy is not the same as a market economy. In fact, they are almost diametric opposites. A capitalist economy by design concentrates control of the means of production in the hands of the few to the exclusion of the many, which is exactly what our present economy does. It has of course won out over communism. What is less often noted is that it has also won out over democracy and a market economy. The capitalist economy features monopoly, financial speculation, absentee ownership, deregulation, public subsidies, and central economic planning by megacorporations. A market economy, in contrast, is organized by people engaging in the production and exchange of goods and services as a means of livelihood. A market economy features human-scale enterprises, honest money, rooted local ownership, and a framework of democratically chosen rules.

Source: Rethinking Progress in a Time of Crisis –

  Non-violent insurgency?…// Time for a Climate Insurgency? The Occupy movement was a joke, pious gandhians can be worse than the ultra-violent capitalists and governments in place…

The fixation on non-violent insurgency doesn’t apply to the first item on the list in the article: the democratic revolutions of the early modern. So what is being proposed here? What happened to the term ‘revolution’, and what about the Jan 6, insurgency?
This trashy article never even mentions the French Revolution, Karl Marx, or the Russian Revolution, or the Civil War. The term insurgency is being corrupted here and does not refer to non-violent peace marches. And the reference to Winstanley invokes the English Civil War, one of the seminal movements in the birth of modern democracy. It had proportionately more casualties than the First World War.

Face reality: the capitalist system will not yield to modification through the non-violent method in question. In fact, almost all the so-called non-violent insurgencies failed. The capitalist class knows that it can ignore challenges of this type. The Occupy Movement was a joke.
Let us note the crucial importance of the abolitionist movement, but in the end only the Civil War did the job, not a non-violent movement…
The case of MLK is misleading. His non-violent movement was brilliant but contextual, and had a measure of success. And some help from the US government and army. But the late MLK changed his perspective and as he turned outward to a larger movement challenging capitalism you can sense his changing perspective. And he was assassinated in the end.

Source: Opinion | Time for a Climate Insurgency? | Jeremy Brecher

 Marxism failed to produce socialism…end of story…in the end Marxism was the biggest swindle of the working class since capitalism

I haven’t read this book but the issue of Marxism remains problematical. One can admire Marx historically but the world needs a framework that can actually do the job. Marx made a monopoly of his thought in a field with many thinkers, the result was a closed cult stuck forever in apologetics. In a larger sense, the way he cast his theories condemned the socialist idea to a failure of realization. In part the whole effort produced false theories of history and the result was the narrow now dated materialism of his time. The whole debate between idealism and materialism was useless and is not needed for a viable praxis. What a waste of effort. Socialism needs a far larger range of discourse than the obsessive analysis of economic systems. How does that attack on idealism advance socialism? Quantum field theory is now evidently idealist. What are Marxists going to do about that?
The dilemma seems ridiculous now and is doomed to antagonize needlessly a whole sector of the public and turn them into enemies.
The Frankfurt School was no better perhaps, but that is downriver history at this point.
We need something simple, failsafed, with a movement that can create a real postcapitalist economy without destroying civil liberties and able to create an open society, within the limits of ecological disaster.
Monthly Review has concocted a sophistical ecological interpretation in the Marx canon. Disaster strikes. Now ecology will be vitiated by Marx’s bad theories. Ecological socialism should be off limits to Marx idiots. Enough screw ups.
Socialism doesn’t need speculative monstrosities like historical materialism or dialectical materialism. The Marxist corpus has handed its enemies simple keys to its refutation and grounds for dismissing socialism. Marx’s other material is important but hard to extract from the misleading theories. We have suggested a new approach that doesn’t try to create a science of history. Every such attempt has failed and with Marx, the issue of freedom becomes a problem of theory, disastrous.
The effort here uses the material of the ‘eonic effect’, which is simply an empirical chronology of evolutionary civilizations, but with a clear indications of key transitions embedded. That is all we need. And the issue of economics is secondary to that larger process. Economies can dominate but they don’t really determine society which follows a different and far larger process. And after all that effort Marxism can’t even get economics right and muddles the whole subject. We can grant the cogency of Marx’s critique of capitalism. But even there we must move on.
We need a blueprint for a new society that is socialist, democratic, and constitutional, one that can resolve the ‘market’ enigma. The focus on the working class can remain central, but it needs a larger vision of the society that will follow capitalism. And it must be clear in advance lest the inexorable drift into Stalinism recur all over again. Marx’s focus on the working class backfired and gave the world of Leninism/Stalinism grounds for mass murder.
We have time to start over and clearly define the nature of the society that can produce a sane economy, an ecological/socialist perspective and a simple historical saga. And lest we forget, a real socialism should have long since exposed the Darwinist social Darwinism and its capitalist curse. Even that Marxism can’t manage in its sterile conformity to capitalist ideology in its mesmerizing worst.
The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_ver_FNL_4xa_12_18_21 shows a one hundred page rewrite for a socialist platform that is clear, simple, and realizable with a sane approach to a new kind of economy where Marxism could produce only the fake results foisted on the working class by the dictatorship of the Marxist bourgeoisie. In the end Marxism was the biggest swindle of the working class since capitalism.

In our approach we use an outline of world history and a sketch of the Axial Age: World history shows directionality and parallelism. That bestows on modernity an immense legacy of Chinese, Indic, Persian/Israelite, Greek/Roman cultures, just for starters. That heritage is filtered through the still more complex heritage of the early modern. To take all of that and strip it bare in a false dilemma of idealism versus materialism produced cultural flatlanders and social anemia.

The DMNC model is just that: a tool to consider socialism in practice. Use it, instead of sterile Marx cultism, deal with the actual cases of history. And critique the idiotic theory of Darwin.

Tony McKenna’s new book is an important defence of Marxism, against thinkers who have confused and obscured its revolutionary core, argues Chris Nineham

Source: Philosophers with no clothes: A Review of ‘The War Against Marxism’ | MR Online

You Don’t Have to Be a Marxist – Freddie deBoer

????///A somewhat puzzling article despite the fact the title is right: and here we are socialist/revolutionay/reformist but critical of Marxism. Marxists had a great opportunity but the results were all failures. We should ask why and start over because the endgame of capitalism is planetary destruction and postcapitalism needs a neo-socialism that is sane, able to deal with the coming calamity and free from the cult of Marxists who are frozen in place…

Source: You Don’t Have to Be a Marxist – Freddie deBoer