The issue of socialism is stuck in a Marxist monopoly, and one that cannot critique its own legacy. The inexorable path to Stalinist in the context of the Dogma will end up trying to liquidate dissenters. The attempt to find common ground in a larger public sphere is thus lost and the whole thing becomes a dead end.
Consider historical materialism. It is a useless theory, but has a large literature amplified by academic strongholds. But what if one disagrees as the left conceivably activates a transformation: it will alienate millions on the spot, so what to do with such…The road to liquidation is short.
The issue of socialism needs an open category system that doesn’t require theories of history or pseudo-science.
The Global Marxism series organized by SSK in Korea has delivered a number of important presentations and papers on aspects of Marxist economics. I participated in the second round with a paper on …
Source: Marx’s law of profitability after Capital – Michael Roberts Blog
In the 1940′ no less…! Since that time dissent has been made almost impossible.
Source: Appreciating Historian Jacques Barzun’s Critique of Darwinism | Evolution News In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, Barzun was audacious enough to subject Darwin …
Source: Appreciating Historian Jacques Barzun’s Critique of Darwinism | Evolution News – Darwiniana
The left has ended up as a Marx cult and the result is not as effective as it might have been if a broader range of thinking had informed its beginnings. It is not reactionary or counter to socialism to point out the failure of Marx’s historical materialism as a theory, along with this inaccurate depiction of economic epochs, feudalism, capitalism, etc,…The scheme doesn’t work, as Marx himself realized as he invented an ad hoc category of the ‘Asiatic mode of production’, which is what?
The whole issue of ‘modes of production’ is crippled by these bad theories. And these systems are not fundamental drivers of world history. The left needs a larger cultural descriptive history that can help to ensure a socialist future doesn’t start amputating all other categories than the economic.
Marx ended up enforcing the false mystique of capitalism by making it one of his historical epochs, but that doesn’t work and has been a gift to capitalists who can cite Marx to claim that capitalism must endure until its full potential has been realized. That is nonsense, and dangerous to boot. The capitalist class wants to privatize space exploration and extend capitalism into the galaxy at large. In an unexpected expose of this the film Avatar made explicit science fiction out of this and the Corporate takeover of celestial bodies, Pandora?, is very grim in the tale that is a good take on Last of the Mohicans.
Continue reading “Marx’s second rate theories…//Darwin, Marx, Wagner : Critique of a Heritage Barzun, Jacques”
This odd classic contains three critiques, of Marx, Darwin, and Wagner. The critiques of Darwin and Marx are extremely cogent and it is remarkable that this book appeared in the 1940’s. It is testimony to the power of ideology that the critique of Marxism and Darwinism are still virtually impossible, beyond the neoliberal and/or creationist brands which are usually not believable. The critiques from the capitalist world were always disregarded but Barzun’s cuts to the quick in a different vein, this from a professor of literature.
Barzun in the old-fashioned vein of the early critics of Marx (going back to the nineteenth century) makes mincemeat of Marx’s pretensions to theory, his personality flaws and the larger world of early proto-socialism that was so unfairly suppressed in Marx’s destructive vituperation, even all his ideas were taken up without acknowledgment from such sources. It is a sad legacy now dominated by Marxist idiots caught up in a frozen paradigm. At a time of crisis a post-marxism needs to be recast in a more sensible fashion. The current Marxism will never geet a second chance in its current form.
The critique of economic growth, once a fringe position, is gaining widespread attention in the face of the climate crisis.
Source: Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth? | The New Yorker
The subject, and internet presence, ‘historical materialism’ is considerable in its scope and yet the entire discipline seems incapable of leading to a focused radical or social democratic path. Marxism is easy to jargonize and over-analyze, with no real result, and little connection with public thinking or with the equally barren fields of sociology, historical or otherwise.
We have pointed here repeatedly to some core problems with ‘histomat’ in terms of its obsessive Marx worship and rote assumptions about the canonical status of his legacy. We have pointed to the shallowness and misfire of economic analysis of world history as an odd fundamentalism, and then to the fallacy of ‘stages of production’ theory, and the failure to produce a viable model of the very socialism/communism projected, very much in a void. The whole legacy of leninism/bolshevism goes almost without critical comment alienating virtually the whole potential public for socialism…
We have suggested a whole series of remedies, among them a divorce with a failed past and a recasting of the socialist legacy that was so dogmatically appropriated to marxist monopoly by Marx himself…
Source: News | Historical Materialism