Our DMNC and anarchism…//Marxism versus Anarchism 

We have been critical of Marxism but in the end, as clear in our own moment with the Occupy movement, the opposition of Marx/Engels is in the end somehow inevitable.
Our DMNC model attempts to blend opposites in a mix that is balanced against one-sided tendencies. It even explores a very slight anarchist strain in the way it has both a strong state of guardians with limited powers, a middle democratic core, and an indifference zone (economically) left to itself yet also blended into the larger system. The balance of the opposites can free the experiment from onesided obsessions.

Robbie Mahood [Presented as on line educational sponsored by Ligue pour l’action socialiste (LAS)/Socialist Action/Canada. Montréal, April 23, 2021. SA/LAS is Socialist Action/USA sister party in t…

Source: Marxism versus Anarchism – Socialist Action

A new path to socialism

Two posts from yesterday collated and to be continued as a single essay/post below.

The question of socialism has been controversial for so long and socialism such an underdog, apparently, confronting the capitalist ideology made common sense by the immense factor of its propaganda, that the idea of socialism is on the defensive. But times have changed and suddenly we can see the prescience of the early socialists, the superset that Marx/Engels ended up dominating dogmatically, as the implications dawned of the world of capitalism coming into existence so suddenly. The Second International shows the sudden global popularity of the core ideas, then trounced and discredited by bolshevism/Stalinism. The planet is at risk from capitalism and the capitalists themselves are blind to what they have created. Not only that they have generally refused to consider
Marxists would like to think that they can simply try again with the old format/formation. That’s like thinking a rocket launch that fails can be followed by a second attempt with no consideration of what went wrong. The external social world has indeed considered the flaws of marxism, but Marxists are a kind of cult that can never question basic assumptions. This stalled mentality is holding back the left. Continue reading “A new path to socialism”

 Some suggestions for moving beyond Marx…

Drop the term ‘Marxism’: it has generated a cult of personality based on a cult leader who can’t be questioned, Marx was a domineering cult leader type and could barely deal with Engels, let alone the general public. His manner has made a cult of marxism that is counterproductive now.

Abandon ‘historical materialism’, period. It is pseudo-science and a philosophical quagmire. It had a great effect on the way to secular humanism, but its history is not relevant now. The materialism that battled Hegel’s idealism is dated now and in the age of quantum field theory doesn’t even represent science. There is no sequence of economic epochs generating world history. That’s nonsense. Capitalism is a continuous stream in universal history starting with Paleolithic barter. It is suddenly amplified by the Industrial Revolution and becomes dominant but it is not an epoch in itself. It arises and then dominates modernity, which is indeed the start of a new epoch. To label capitalism an epoch Marx makes a monumental blunder which suggests it will persist for centuries. In reality it is a set of economic and technological chmaracters that can be changed at any time, and given the outcome it should be absorbed under socialism as soon as possible. The sequence feudalism, capitalism, communism is a fiction and we should look at world history, where Marx had never even heard of Sumer, as a simple chronology and abandon the futile effort to make history a science.

The legacy of socialism/communism ended up in jackknife against liberal systems, which provoked the excuse for total destruction of democracy.
Socialism needs to create a viable economy: our idea of democratic market neo-communism shows a simple way to blend the two types of system.
Democracy, markets, planning, a Commons…there are multiple components to a new social system. We can’t just exclaim socialism without specifying the multiple components essential.

Marx’s basic theories are idiotic oversimplification from the age of early scientism.
Leftists must disown the old, and be wary of old terminology. The public is not aware of the difference between idealistic Marx groups and North Korean communism. Marx never acknowledges failure where the public is more sensible and sees the problem at once. It would be nice to move from the terms socialism/communism. But that might not work. We have created the term neo-communism and moved on. We define these terms fresh and they don’t have to conform to Marx’s boilerplate nonsense.
Marxists have confused everyone and made socialism an impossible task/

A socialist system should be based on a liberalism, save on the issue of private property, capital.

It is not crazy! Look at Exxon-Mobil: such monsters should have been expropriated at the start, as Marx and Engels originally thought in the 1848 era.  The public has let these gangster capitalists sieze control of all human resources. Property in the large doesn’t refer to property in the small, personal belongings, small shops, etc… It was obvious very early but now the public is almost too conditioned to change. But the issue is no longer private belief system: we can start to see the whole world system set to crash.

to be continued

Source: The biggest obstacle to socialism is the cult of Marx idiots…/The Question of a Stagnant Marxism: Is Marxism Exegetical or Scientific?  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The biggest obstacle to socialism is the cult of Marx idiots…/The Question of a Stagnant Marxism: Is Marxism Exegetical or Scientific?

Some suggestions for moving beyond Marx…
Drop the term ‘Marxism’: it has generated a cult of personality based on a cult leader who can’t be questioned, Marx was a domineering cult leader type and could barely deal with Engels, let alone the general public. His manner has made a cult of marxism that is counterproductive now.

Abandon ‘historical materialism’, period. It is pseudo-science and a philosophical quagmire. It had a great effect on the way to secular humanism, but its history is not relevant now. The materialism that battled Hegel’s idealism is dated now and in the age of quantum field theory doesn’t even represent science. There is no sequence of economic epochs generating world history. That’s nonsense. Capitalism is a continuous stream in universal history starting with Paleolithic barter. It is suddenly amplified by the Industrial Revolution and becomes dominant but it is not an epoch in itself. It arises and then dominates modernity, which is indeed the start of a new epoch. To label capitalism an epoch Marx makes a monumental blunder which suggests it will persist for centuries. In reality it is a set of economic and technological chmaracters that can be changed at any time, and given the outcome it should be absorbed under socialism as soon as possible. The sequence feudalism, capitalism, communism is a fiction and we should look at world history, where Marx had never even heard of Sumer, as a simple chronology and abandon the futile effort to make history a science.

The legacy of socialism/communism ended up in jackknife against liberal systems, which provoked the excuse for total destruction of democracy.
Socialism needs to create a viable economy: our idea of democratic market neo-communism shows a simple way to blend the two types of system.
Democracy, markets, planning, a Commons…there are multiple components to a new social system. We can’t just exclaim socialism without specifying the multiple components essential.

Marx’s basic theories are idiotic oversimplification from the age of early scientism.
Leftists must disown the old, and be wary of old terminology. The public is not aware of the difference between idealistic Marx groups and North Korean communism. Marx never acknowledges failure where the public is more sensible and sees the problem at once. It would be nice to move from the terms socialism/communism. But that might not work. We have created the term neo-communism and moved on. We define these terms fresh and they don’t have to conform to Marx’s boilerplate nonsense.
Marxists have confused everyone and made socialism an impossible task/

A socialist system should be based on a liberalism, save on the issue of private property, capital.

It is not crazy! Look at Exxon-Mobil: such monsters should have been expropriated at the start, as Marx and Engels originally thought in the 1848 era. The public has let these gangster capitalists sieze control of all human resources. Property in the large doesn’t refer to property in the small, personal belongings, small shops, etc… It was obvious very early but now the public is almost too conditioned to change. But the issue is no longer private belief system: we can start to see the whole world system set to crash.

to be continued

Source: The biggest obstacle to socialism is the cult of Marx idiots…/The Question of a Stagnant Marxism: Is Marxism Exegetical or Scientific? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

The biggest obstacle to socialism is the cult of Marx idiots…/The Question of a Stagnant Marxism: Is Marxism Exegetical or Scientific?
It is almost shocking to read this. It suffers from its own diagnosis, and is stuck still in the confusions of Marxism as a science.
We have critiqued that view here over and over again, but any such discussion means instant cancellation in the Marx cult and Marxists can never critique their own subject.
To be fair, this article cleverly manages to critique Marxism and get away with it. Bravo, but the core difficulties are not faced, and it remains to be seen whether our rebel will end canceled.
Having failed to maintain a line of communication and banned from two major Marx lists, I continue because time is running out and there is not much time for preventing a second Marx disaster like Bolshevism. The point now is to find a new path to socialism that sees the failures of Marx and Engels. And a new audience. Time to just leave Marxists behind. Many on the left have done so but they tend to be reformists.
If Marx meant anything it was his stance of the question of revolution. In a severe crisis Marx will seem the path to revolutionary change. But in the end it is Marxism that produced Stalinism, and that mistake may cost the future the chance of socialism.
Much in Marx can be used if Marxists can evade the pitfalls of fallacy.
The idea that Marxism is a science is still pitifully dominant in a closed cult of Marx the great genius. Genius or not, Marx failed to produce a science and what is taken as science is so amateurish bad science as to leave one to wonder how the confusion still survives.
The biggest obstacle to socialism is the cult of Marx idiots. We will try to assemble the massive amount of material here, once again.
I am not a dogmatic revolutionary: the issue of revolution is probably ill-served by revolutionary ideologues. But the revolution will come on its own, and the path to a new form of society is in permanent danger of tragic mistakes. But look at the Pandemic: for one breathtaking moment, capitalism seemed to simply shut down. No left was there to move into a new world. So revolution will be thrust upon us. I am almost superstitiously a Gaian: nature is in revolt and mad as hell at the era of capitalism as planetary wreckage.

Two Manifestos version
The Anthropocene and The Coming of Postcapitalism ver 12
9780984702930-LFM_text(2)
Capitalism, Communism and the Evolution of Civilization(1)
And much more.
This material is rough but it contains everything needed for a new revolutionary/evolutionary path to socialism.
This approach critiques Darwinism which has sabotaged the left, with class war as genocide and embraced the one
ideological mainstay of capitalism.

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=critical+marxism
https://redfortyeight.com/?s=democratic+market+neo-communism

Source: The Question of a Stagnant Marxism: Is Marxism Exegetical or Scientific? – Cosmonaut

Replacing historical materialism with a model like that of the eonic effect

The solution to the problem of a socialist world history is not too hard to find, if one can free oneself from the dogmas of the older left, so dominated by the fake genius, Marx.

The issue can be freed from the eonic model itself and revert to simple outlines. Resist the temptation of attempts to produce a science of history or evolution. There is a much simpler way: look at the facts of evolution in deep time,but stay away from the fake theory of natural selection. The same for history. The value of the eonic model is not that it produces a science of history but that it enforces a disciple of balance: all catergories of civilization are touched upon: and false debates like that between idealism and materialism are sidelined.  The attempt to produce a new socialist society based on marxism was stilborn and in the fanatic.

 

Two Manifestos

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 sociali…

Source: Marx’s second rate theories…//Darwin, Marx, Wagner : Critique of a Heritage  Barzun, Jacques – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Marx’s second rate theories…//Darwin, Marx, Wagner : Critique of a Heritage Barzun, Jacques

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”

Snapping out of the Marxist theory fantasy…//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.

In Defense of Materialism—Alan Woods | Socialist Revolution

How did the marxist left contract into ‘materialism’? The answer is clear from the work of Marx and the question rather provokes historical re-examination of the issue. It may be true that academic philosophy trends to the reactionary, but was the solution ‘materialism’ (which is what, in the age of quantum field theory)? It is true that a dark side to Hegel is indeed, if not reactionary, then a hard-to-fathom ambivalence trending to the right as Hegel aged into the Prussian centerfold. But the blame was cast onto idealism which seemed discredited, but only in the generation of Hegel. Idealism cast out into philosophical exile is a confusion of isms. In fact the rise of modernity shows in Kant a breakthrough of sorts in the discovery of a new form of idealism, his transcendental idealism. We cannot in the name of the left send this thesis into exile and in fact ‘transcendental idealism’ which is neither transcendental nor a Hegelian style idealism, is a major advance in philosophy, assuming that Plato had no discovered it first, Plato another sort of reactionary, in the end.
But Kant was the source of new school of socialism, in the late nineteenth century, and Eisner the martyr of the German revolution as such a follower.
The challenge Kant’s brilliant thinking is not a political issue. And the sad reality is that the coarse materialism of the era of Marx has diminished the marxist left and made it the antagonist to a balanced set of viewpoint essential for a sane socialist society. To pit materialism against idealism is monumental constriction of thought and we can see the terrible result in the institutional idiocy of Bolshevism (which had other flaws, no doubt). Praxis would to better to remain neutral to such a useless debate. Note that the physics of materialism must use theory structures that are idealist abstractions and a mystery in themselves.
Is the quantum field of a subatomic particle an idealist political deviation?
The issue of Hegel then is not sufficient grounds for a determination of the materialism/idealism debate that Marx suffered through with a one-sided outcome that was obsessively connected to the birth of positivism in its earliest and stunted form. Marxist succeeded with this strain of bad philosophy to make half the public heretics in the marxist religion, a band move destined to a soon arriving checkmate from the real enemies of the left.

Alan Woods provides an overview of Lenin’s arguments, and mounts a defense of materialism against the obscurantist, postmodernist nonsense on university campuses today.

Source: In Defense of Materialism—Alan Woods | Socialist Revolution

consider the materialism of…new age/archaic yoga….//Marx, Hegel, and the Critique of Religion: A Response

Update: We should be wary of critiquing Marx here on this point. The social condition of religion are clearly relevant and Marx was determined to analyze this in his own way.

Update: Having mentioned the eonic effect I should point out that the triangle of Kant, Hegel, Marx (in some ways Schopenhauer makes Kant clearer) is a spectacular moment in the eonic sequence itself at its modern divide (consult the eonic model) and that also explains why such a moment is repeatedly recalled and analyzed like an echo of that strange moment or generation. But it is only a brief moment in a large situation. Marx and Hegel are just at the limits of the eonic transition of modernity. Same for Kant who is well inside.

The so-called new atheism treats beliefs in isolation from their social conditions and does not link the persistence of religion to our alienated forms of life under capitalism.

Surely this is the wrong analysis. By restricting study to social context the gesture of reductionism fails. Religion is not an alienated form of life under capitalism. Bullshit. It might assume that demeanor in context. But religion emerges millennia prior to capitalism. Further, the rational critique of superstitions while entirely appropriate in one way misses the points that a spiritual domain is not a superstition. The problem is the destructive duality of western thought here. So it is not that spirituality is a superstition against materialism, but that both are a unity in a larger context, possibly of the universal materialism of ancient Samkhya revived in the new age movement by figures like Bennett (and his sources). The spiritual then, as an aspect of a larger material nature is real but subject to the Kantian limitations of metaphysics. It is real but can it be knowable? The materialist left was outplayed by a rightist clever piece to try and speak in materialist language: the figure Gurdjieff, that dark occultist, revived some bit of sufi interpretation of the classical India Samkhya with its materialism, atheism, and triadic dialectic. It was a clever piece taken up by Bennett. The point here is that while materialism is a good foundation but its western form is crippled by a false duality. Can anyone recall that the yoga now so popular in the new age wasteland was and is a materialist conception based on that very Samkhya? The great yogas of India were at one point materialist.
Anyway, the reduction of religious beliefs to material conditions just doesn’t work. It does not follow that we should not critique the drift into the superstition of much of this legacy.
The left should be wary of their own perspective. The strange and eerie triad of Kant, Hegel, and Marx is prone to dangerous confusions and sounds elegant in academic jargon in excelsis but is a lost thought in the actual reality invoked by ‘marxism’, which is the dangerous cadre ‘religion’ of Stalinist executioners.

Anyway the endless dialectic of Hegel and Marx is a lost cause now. If all this confusion could take five minutes to review Kant the useless and almost endless parade of marxist finery in those who are addressed by this left, might settle back into sanity. Marx and Hegel both are oblivious to Kant’s critique of metaphysics and both are extravagant metaphysicians of idealism, and materialism both.

———————-
This is all very interesting but the study of religion in the context of Marx, what to say of Hegel, is out of date now, despite its continuing interest as one aspect.
But the issue of religion is more than that of monotheism or the issue of ‘god’. It encompasses via the New Age movement, the hidden aspects of Christianity, the case of Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, the history of Hinduism, the Zoroastrian component and much else.

A study of the eonic effect can help to free the discussion from the idiotic straightjacket of ‘historical materialism’ which is entirely brain dead on all aspects of religion. The idea that socialist revolutionaries pegged Marxist are going to rewrite world culture via Marx’s confused theories and of historical materialism will cause an immense jackknife of the left against itself and turn the public to rightist fanaticism. But Marxists won’t listen. Their own ideology has all the characteristics of religion, and religion at its worst. Don’t go that route. The world has one last chance at socialism and Marxists will be there to spoil it.
The secular trend in world history is validated here but at the same time the secular humanist has been reduced to a sort of atheist worshipping at the altar of Newton and reductionist scientism. The secularist fails to understand his own historical position.
I have often recommend the model of the eonic effect as a better foundation : it approaches theory but then stands back and sees that historical theories and theories of religion are not so easy to come by and that basic outlines are enough: there we find a simple periodization of history and evolution and a context of empirical mapping instead of the now visibly amateurish nonsense of Marx and his epochs of production. The economic angle simply won’t work on the history of world culture and its regions.
Threatened with extinction by secular reductionists the immensely elusive world of esoteric Buddhism declared war on secular modernity and generated a fascist response while remaining hidden from view.
The left cannot go about these issues in the now archaic fashion of the era of the Marx/Hegel collision.
I recommend a close study of the ‘eonic effect’ as a warning against doing stupid things after the fashion of a now long gone left…

Source: Marx, Hegel, and the Critique of Religion: A Response

150th anniversary of Paris Commune: book launch and special discount for ‘The Civil War in France’

On the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Paris Commune, join Wellred Books as we launch our latest title The Civil War in France by Karl Marx. This Thursday (18 March at 6pm GMT) Jules Legendre, a leading activist from Révolution – the IMT in France, will explain the revolutionary events and draw out the lessons revolutionaries must take from the first time the working class took power. Register for free here!

Source: 150th anniversary of Paris Commune: book launch and special discount for ‘The Civil War in France’