BARBARA HARRISS-WHITE discusses Kohei Saito’s book, Marx’s Eco-socialism: capital, nature and the unfinished critique of political economy (Monthly Review Press, 2017). It is based on her talk at a…
Let us note that marx was educated in the early nineteenth century, and it should suspected that he had a somewhat limited view of world history compared to what we can see now.
Kant has a better starting point for analyzing history: the left is in a muddle between marx and (unspoken) hegel, but both are attempting to resolve the questions of kant.
With two centuries of research: archaeology, we are in a much better position to answer to kant, viz. the eonic effect…
The debate over idealism and materialism (which still lingers today, no doubt) is a product of the early nineteenth century when reductionist scientism collided with hegelian idealism (and not only that), the latter a bit extravagant perhaps, and we see the extreme reaction in the generation of marx/engels. But the debate is pointless now, and in an age of quantum mechanics almost ridiculous. The obvious suggestion in general is that both views are right and somehow complementary.
The marxist left is still mired in the morass of that dated argument and needs to move on. Inflicting this one those who wish to move toward socialism is both pointless and highly prejudicial. The prospect of imposing hard-core materialism of the early science era on the whole of thought has alienated so many potential socialists that one has to wonder at the boxed mentation created by the marxist legacy.
We have extracted a short blogbook from a longer piece with older archived posts.
The text points the way to a new and simplified approach (we had several here) to a leftist paradigm without the confusions of historical materialism. The booklet is at most a series of notes for a whole book and/or an introduction to World History and the Eonic Effect.
Every scientific theory ends up obsolete and marxism is not exception, but leftists tend to keep it central in a kind fetishism of true believers.
Most of the rest of the marxism is another matter: filled with useful material of one kind or another. But the theoretical confusions of marxism pervade the whole subject and the whole left.
We need to make Marx/Engels historical introductions to a new formulation created in our ‘now’ and relevant to the conditions of current economics, globalization, and science, and with a rewrite introducing ecological socialism as a keynote.
It may seem counterproductive to critique marx’s theories, but it has nothing to do with marx: it is an issue to do with theories in general. The successful theories we see in physics and its related subjects can be misleading: Continue reading “The eonic effect, model, theories, free agents and the endless free will debate…”
Who can afford all this? The academic study of marx is another version of vanguardism, and at prices only the bourgeoisie can afford.
Trying ad infinitum to decipher marx has gone on ad finitum and the leftists who will have to create socialism aren’t much the wiser. We need a one page version of all these subjects. Marx’s theories are obscure because in the end they don’t make sense. The same can’t be said of his other writings where he didn’t try so hard: the issue is to be prepared to construct a socialist economy and society and one that is vaster in richness of content than the one-track minds of marxists.
The first installment of Michael Heinrich’s three-volume biography of Karl Marx titled “Karl Marx and the Birth of Modern Society” is now available from Monthly Review Press. In keeping with MR’s long-time tradition as a movement rather than an academic press, the cloth edition is $34.95 and the eBook is only $19.95.