Is Wollf’s Marxist fundamentalism on track?

This is an interesting essay, and rightly provocative, but the situation in Ukraine would seem to involve more than capitalism. Destroying Ukraine in the name of capitalism seems a typical Marxist oversimplification and one that tries, not without interest, to apply Marxist economic principles.
But the economic focus in Marxism is excessively reductionist. The confusion is not so much in the analysis on the ground but the disastrous remedy proposed by Marxism. We need a broad view of history, empire, economics and cultural factors and a better analysis of modernity the incorrect Marxist theories of the economic stage of history. Beset with the curse of capitalism we confront the curse of Marxism. Putin is in the end the fag of Bolshevism, and we need a post-marxist framework to look more clearly at history and economic systems

Ukraine, per se, is not the issue. It is tragically a war-ravaged pawn in a much larger conflict. Nor is the issue about either Russian President Vladimir Putin or U.S. President Joe Biden as leaders. The same history and confrontation would prevail upon their successors. Meanwhile, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s effort to force change on the PRC by imposing the biggest sanctions action in history (i.e., a trade war and a tariff war) utterly failed. Trump was caught up in the same history as Biden, even if each focused on attacking the Russian-Chinese alliance differently.

Source: The Role of Capitalism in the War in Ukraine – CounterPunch.org

(PDF) Review of Tony McKenna The War Against Marxism: Reification and Revolution

A useful review of the core of War Against Marxism, but the result still makes little sense. We have spent two centuries rehashing Hegel versus Marx and the results are totally confusing and unproductive. Marxism has failed to produce socialism and the result should be ‘you’re fired’, so we can start over with something more productive. Neither Hegel nor Marx had the data for a study of history and/or evolution even as the ideology of Darwinism ended up snaring the whole Marx legacy. The references here to Hegel’s method are ludicrous. What was that? Maybe a Sparks notes version might help.

I recommend a complete break with this jargon ridden universe and a simple escape route of socialism into a new and simpler approach to history, philosophy, religion and economics. The idea for a science of history and/or a philosophy of history has failed and a new approach such as simple chronologies can be a useful substitute. The whole base superstructure distinction is a pack of nonsense. It is very hard to resolve the dynamic of history but it is clear that that is not economic. Economic determination is secondary in historical realization and it is not clear just how history works. A close study of the eonic model can suggest a new perspective with a warning that historical and organismic evolution remain unsolved problems for human knowledge. The realm of Marx and Hegel in this direction are obsolete realms of fiction. Marx was an ambitious theorist who ended up in twenty years of writers block unable to complete Capital because its core was incoherent and incapable of scientific completion. Marx finally gave up and handed the whole mess of Capital to Engels who managed to rescue something from the mess of pottage. The generations studying Capital have produced a sophistical and incoherent cult that is a de facto religion and a dangerous stance toward heretics still in the realm of common sense. Marx was a predator who took over the idea of socialism and made it a kind of personal property as an ism in his name, Marxism. Time to just let go and and start over.

PDF | Bloomsbury Academic: London and New York, 2021. 280 pp., $29.95 pb ISBN 9781350201415 About the reviewer Fouad Mami is a literature scholar from… | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

Source: (PDF) Review of Tony McKenna The War Against Marxism: Reification and Revolution

Is It Time for a New Economics Curriculum? 

I have at times bought remaindered copies of economics textbooks for a dollar or so (no more, they have mostly disappeared) at Amazon but found the whole subject indigestible and filled with mathematical sophistries. A new wind seems to be blowing through the subject and this new brand is free online. The subject remarkably is tiptoeing let’s hope toward postcapitalism. We need a viable economy as ecosocialist ‘democratic market neo-communism’ with an economy with socialist markets based on a Commons with licensed resources. This hybrid should get its own textbook, either as a manifesto for revolutionary/reformist economic transformation or as textbook for such a system coming into being.

“The Economy,” a new textbook, is designed for the post-neoliberal age.

Source: Is It Time for a New Economics Curriculum? | The New Yorker

General Relativity versus Marxism versus boojois economics

Marxism is too complicated and in the end incoherent. I remember years ago in the seventies (!) living in the East Village, I had a lot of time on my hands and walked to the 42 street library annex every day to use their superb collections. I decided to teach myself General Relativity and Marxism: the library had really good midrange collections on such subjects: myou have you choice of the best textbooks in the world, and the whole literature of Marxism, and you can borrow them and read in the park. I have a fair degree of math: vectors, advanced calculus, sort of, abstract algebra, etc.. I started studying Einstein’s theory, said to be super hard, and Marxism at the same time. Einstein’s theory is supposed to be super hard but with a set of sharp #2 pencils and some large sheets of paper the subject of GR’s tensors falls into place, more or less. At the same time I read maybe fifty books on Marxism.
Buess what: in three weeks I had a rough idea of General Relativity and its tensors, but fifty years later I still can’t make sense out of Marxism. That should tell you something. There is no real way to figure out Marxism because the whole Marx’s theory is a mess. Marx struggled for years and then gave up. A good example is the labor theory of value. I recall the debates in the books I read, of fifty years ago. And then having checked back I see the same debates going on all over again. Absolutely nothing is settled. The theory makes no real sense beyond saying that capitalists don’t pay good enough wages. I also tried the same thing with Samuelson’s text on economics. That case is a little different, but I had the same problem: maginalism and infinitesimal, bull shit. Economics in fragments can be useful no doubt, like the supply and demand curve, but overall the subject is not a science, and defies comprehension even if college students seem to be learning a subject. Maybe, but it is not science. A degree in neoclassical parrot squawk, perhaps.

The moral here is that no one can really figure out Marx, Marx included.
One reason we can’t reach socialism is none know what they are talking about.
The whole field is too complicated. Bourgeois economics I will skip because it sometimes works, sort of.
But Marxists are too confused to move us to socialism.
Over and out