need for a critical marxism, the failure of ‘theory’ confronting praxis…//Marxism: A Method, Theory and Practice | Left Voice

This is a reasonable summary of marxism in a nutshell and also a good list of the problems of the whole ‘ism’ as we discover the need to upgrade the subject.
We have endless posts here on all the issues but in a quick take our critique has a range of issues:
we critique ‘theory’ and caution that marx’s ‘stages of production’ theory is flawed and the stages of epochal transformation as science, feudalism, capitalism, communism is hardly a scientific theory at all and we must not assume that some teleological mechanism will guarantee its action: we must assess the limits of capitalist economy and act as free agents on the basis of values beyond scientific claims to define and then construct a real socialism/communism. The latter are not guaranteed by history because they have no absolute definitions but we can sense that marx beyond theory was indirectly right: we can derive the axioms of communism in terms of values, such as equality and fairness, as we analyze the failed implications of capitalism. Failure to perform these tasks has left the radical game without direction, endlessly repeating the mantras of marxist shibboleths.
In general theories of history are an unsafe area for grand generalizations. Marx’s historical materialism thus produces a theory of history in a grand sweep. But historical theories are almost always failures and histomat has ended up as target practice for critics.
Marxists have a problematical relationship with hegel, but there is a simple solution: move beyond historical materialism to a larger and balanced study of the history of philosophy and science. Look at kant: his essay on history suggests a number of issues that are far more practical, viz. the progression to a perfect social constitution, than the ‘endgame’ of hegel who is a commentary on issues raised by a long history of philosophy: better to embrace a larger field in an ironic take on dialectic: the latter however is confused by marxists. The idea of material dialectic as some science known to marxists is complete nonsense and the whole legacy of dialectic has been almost a torpedo sinking the whole subject.  Hegel is a mysterious thinker and it is inadvisable to base one’s  legacy on his vatic obscurities. Base the canon on something more tangible, to start.
The distinction of ‘utopian, scientific’ socialism is thus misplaced: marxism has not produced a science in any reasonable account, so ironically the ‘utopian’ stands at the end as the real survivor. The term ‘utopian’ is wrong, or prejudicial: we should instead consider the subject the ‘practical task’ of defining a socialist or communist commonwealth and the values that support it, not as historical laws, but as gestures of men freely creating a successor to capitalism. There is no guarantee of this according to historical laws because ‘history’ only produces a starting point that must be realized in practice.

The central question for those awakening to political life today is this: What is Marxism, and what does it mean for our political analysis and practice? To begin to answer this question, we must see Marxism not only as a theory but as a method of analysis and a political practice.

Source: Marxism: A Method, Theory and Practice | Left Voice

 Scientific, utopian…

I am not sure if Engels does justice to this interesting figure but in any case Engels is peddling the extreme form of ‘historical materialism’ that behind its bluster of theoretical pr…

Source:  Engels/Marx’s pseudo-theory, scientific versus utopian, etc…value free scientism on theory is the fountain of marxist bullshit, and paralysis…and got a lot of psychopaths into murderous power…and hasn’t produced a single success as socialism… – Toward a New Socialism

 Marx’s theory of history lacks the distinction of free action/system action…

Marxists should study the eonic model: Marx creates a model of stages of economic history with communism at the end. We have critiqued this scheme but we can use it as an example of a system/model that has no distinction of free action and system action, although Marx was forced to actually come close on the sidelines to the distinction by the logic of his argument). Note that the appearance of communism has its own non-random aspect: it appears  inside two eonic transitions, the ancient greek and the modern transition, with Marx/Engels and the early french socialists  spectacularly just outside the ‘divide’: M/E are thus just in the passage from system action to free action or the realization of the communist idea. But they never get specific: they are almost stuck in the ‘system action’ abstractions….It is important to consider the ‘stream and sequence’  terminology of the model: and this would ask what is the history of the communist idea in general history outside of the transition sequence? Probably the sumerians invented it, like most everything, or else it is prefigured in the Neolithic, and of courst is appears to have some Paleolithic aspect. Once the eonic sequence  picks up something from the stream it gets amplified and shot out of a cannon: democracy, revolution, socialism/communism are good examples.

Emergent communism would some how be like ‘system action’ while its realization would be free action. The latter is absent from marxist models. Small wonder bolshevism crashed …

Here are the three sections on the ‘eonic model’ from Chapter 4 of World History and the Eonic Effect The first reference to the distinction is here, scroll down or use the search box T…

Source: The material on the eonic model from World History and the Eonic Effect: distinction of system action and free action appears throughout – Toward a New Socialism

what is ‘democratic market neo-communism’…?//What is Socialism?

This useful and compelling essay raises more questions than it answers and it is difficult to navigate the choppy waters of definitional socialism. We should note the term arises before the work of Marx and we are not bound by the legacy of marxism as such here. We have claimed that Marx’s theories are flawed and this may well muddle his brilliant classic, Critique of the Gotha Program. We need to construct a superset of the marxist legacy that can avail of its potential but recast the basics where needed. Continue reading “what is ‘democratic market neo-communism’…?//What is Socialism?”

The Return of “Judeo-Bolshevism”

This is an important and useful article but it fails to really get at the history here which can’t be resolved by leftists in a muddle over bolshevism. A work such as Grand Deceptions, towards the end goes into the suppressed history of this question and is debatably itself a diatribe on ‘Judeo-Bolshevism’. But the left can’t simply igrnore the facts here. Continue reading “The Return of “Judeo-Bolshevism””