The Holodomor: The History and Legacy of the Ukrainian Famine Engineered by the Soviet Union 

Like it or not the truly horrific legacy of Marxism as Bolshevik Stalinism wrecked the reputation of the left. This gruesome portrait of an empowered psychopath in the name of ‘communism’ is sobering…A complete break with the Marxist junk canon is essential… A real social vehicle as neo-communism can resolve the issues behind the incompetence generated by Marxism…

The Last Revolution beat Jacobin to it…??//Gorbachev Couldn’t Reform the Soviet System — but a Better Socialism Is Possible

I have to wonder if my The Last Revolution isn’t echoing here! It is a comprehensive effort to create a ‘blueprint’ of the kind cited here. In any case, my The Last Revolution (which Jacobin has been informed of invited to download the free copy PDF, I am fairly sure they are aware of it) tries to comprehensively formulate that ‘better socialism’ discussed at Jacobin. They are welcome to consult my text but since I am ‘canceled’ at such places and at Marxmail, etc, …, I doubt if they would deign to communicate. The new commie elite must already be in place complete with embryonic class rebirth….(cf. the editors of all the various leftist magazines and literature…I am not a member with a self-published book, the new route to discussions on the left)…The danger on the left in a revolutionary moment would be the outbreak of violent conflict with crypto-Stalinist marxist cadres who can’t change a single word in Marx…
Some observations: the article never references the fact that a revolutionary change is implied by such a new system (although in my text I certainly allow the reformist alternative). All of this is evidently supposed to just happen…Discussion of revolution and its aftermath is essential along with failsafes against re-Stalinization and derailed revolutionary power…The failures of Marxists have been very stark here. One can’t just pass over the issue in silence
: in my view the whole legacy of Bolshevism PLUS that of Marx needs to be left behind in order to start over. It is important to be clear here because many self-styled agents on the left make a canon dogma of Marxism and the Jacobin ‘Blueprint’ will end up in a hash with Marxist thinking (which remains useful in fragments in the backgroud) and/or denounced as some counterrevolutionary piece and/or …

: The Last Revolution restarts without Marxism, citing only the historical drama of Marx/Engels in the 1848 era… The left needs to get past the whole morass of Marx/Hegel, the failure Marx’s theories, the useless baggage of historical materialism, dialectical materialism…A new socialism needs a new historical framework that is not still more Marx boilerplate and reductionist scientism applied to history in the form of confused economics. The Last Revolution has a new strategy there with a snapshot version of the simple outline in my ‘eonic model’
: The left has to screw up its courage and deal with Darwinism, plus the twin conspiracies of JFK and 9/ll, including the issue of Israel/Mossad and in generatl the crimiinal mafia running the American government and behind the drug trade at the core of the Deep State
: A lot more here, consult the Last Revolution with its plethora of notes, and its own limitations: it needs a more specific ecosocialist project. The DMNC model is a kind of container for ecolotical socialism..
: I may have misjudged the Jacobin people here: this was perhaps just a floater piece, with no intention to reference climate change, etc, etc… But the issue has a new standard in the complexity and detail of the Last Revolution….

In any case despite suspicious caution I welcome any suggestions here despite the fragmenetary nature of the discussion.

In The Blueprint, a book I’m cowriting with Bhaskar Sunkara and Mike Beggs, we lay out an alternative vision that disaggregates the issue of workers’ democracy from the issue of consumer preferences. The most important reason socialists have always advocated democracy at the workplace is that the workplace is the place where most adults have to spend at least half their waking lives most days of the week. No one should have to spend all that time taking orders from bosses over whom they can’t exercise any kind of direct democratic accountability. And the lack of democratic input in deciding what happens to the product of workers’ collective labor — the lack Marxists call “exploitation” — generates an utterly indefensible level of economic inequality.But there’s no reason that democracy at the workplace, and marketless planning of those public goods where markets generate the most socially undesirable consequences, can’t coexist with the use of market mechanisms to solve the information problems that plagued even Gorbachev-era Soviet planners. In the model outlined in our book, full democratic socialism would entail not only domains like health care and education but banks and other commanding heights of the economy would be state-owned. The remaining quasi-private sector would be made up of competing worker-owned cooperatives that would essentially rent the physically means of production from the public as a whole through grants from state-owned banks. When all this is combined with a robust civil society, a free press, and real multiparty elections, it is possible that such a setup could give us a world fundamentally different from both what existed in the Soviet Union and the neoliberal order that’s become globally hegemonic since the USSR’s collapse.

Source: Gorbachev Couldn’t Reform the Soviet System — but a Better Socialism Is Possible

 Gorbachev and the perennial lost opportunities of the Marxist legacy

Gorbachev had a great opportunity but he was unable to take advantage of it and the reason is the failure of the Marxist legacy which consistently misleads everyone who deals with it(including its critics). One winces at the lost potential of the moment and what might have been possible with the new kind of model we have looked at, viz. The DMNC approach which is neither capitalist nor communist but a new way to look at the whole question could have navigated better the idiocy of the Reagans and Thatchers. The sad part is that the sacrifices to achieve expropriation as the classic challenge to private property got thrown away. It was a mistake to have gotten entangled with Reagan and Thatcher, to put it mildly, and whatever the tragic confusions of Bolshevism the solution was not neoliberalism. A close look at the American behavior here shows that the aim wasn’t even capitalism, but the destruction of Russia at the hands of sheer vultures.

Gorbachev could have invented a new form of socialism beyond the utter stupidity of classic Bolshevism: a form of market socialism, a reset of the muddle of planning, etc… The failure of Bolshevism is taken as the failure of socialism, but neither socialism nor communism were every tried in Russia. Never. The whole phantom of Marxism/Leninism was a bum steer from the beginning. We must grant the distortions caused by the great Civil War, but in the period of Gorbachev that wasn’t a factor. Gorbachev was almost on the right track: but social democracy wasn’t the answer either. The Left derived from Marxism forever goofs at the critical moment, and the opportunity lost in the Gorbachev moment is the last greef goof of Marxist idiocy: the path to a real socialism is tricky but in many ways much simpler than the sterile state capitalism spawned in the era of the Bolsheviks.

Russia would not have become a Communist state without Lenin or ceased to be one without Mikhail Gorbachev. At either end of the 20th century, each man played a decisive role in pushing history in a radically new direction it would not have taken otherwise. The path chosen by Gorbachev after he became Soviet leader in 1985 was in some respects more surprising than what Lenin had done in 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution was driven by a terrible war, while Gorbachev’s attempt to modernise and re-energise the Soviet Union was a voluntary choice.

Source: Why Gorbachev Was One of the Greatest Failures in History – CounterPunch.org

Historical materialism, a disaster for the left…//Debriefing Gurdjieffianity: Struggles Of the Black Magicians

The legacy of historical materialism has been disastrous for the left: amputating connections with the complexity of real culture for a barren and scientifically baseless ‘theory’ propaganda, and finally decreeing the illusory nature of all ‘spiritual’ subjects in toto. Spiritual subjects can certainly prove illusory, but so can ‘material’ ideologies. The reactionary counterrevolutionary anti-modernists saw their opportunity and in that field we see the occult fascists at work from the late nineteenth century and the calamity they have already performed as they rev up for another round. Many are puzzled by the alt-right, fascist creep, and political zombiehood, etc… As with Marxists they have declared the problem doesn’t exist.

The curious case of Gurdjieff shows the way this constellation is seizing high ground and while he is innocent til proven guilty and in part an observer or near fellow traveler of the phenomenon in question and he stands just on the fringe of those we have never met who manufactured fascists. Such people aren’t dumb enough to be fascists in raw form, but exploit such dummies for their action of social demolition of freedom, democracy, and a secular world.

The left needs a total remake and a more viable social philosophy than the Marxist ostrich world.

Marxists have made themselves oblivious to the down predator/prey gulch.

The eonic model, the ‘divide’ and the spectacular correlations of Israelitism, Jainism, Buddhism – The Gurdjieff Con

Source: The eonic model, the ‘divide’ and the spectacular correlations of Israelitism, Jainism, Buddhism – The Gurdjieff Con

The near impossibility of communicating the eonic effect is a depressing state of affairs. But in an academic milieu that has failed after almost a century to see the elementary problem with Darwinism one can hardly expect any attention to the reality of the eonic data. Scholars and Marxists are totally blinded by Darwinism and cannot even begin to look at world history or any discussion of its real dynamic. What a pity. This material should have been a college course by now, but sadly I will be dead soon with not chance to develop a study discipline. But maybe something can be managed.

I have tried to extend the discussion of the eonic model and the left by dealing with the case of proximate antiquity in the spectacular correlation with the divide of Jainism, Buddhism and Israelitism (not the same as Judaism, and originally something different from degenerated monotheism).

The reason is to get some inkling before considering the modern case where we see the parallel clustering ca. 1800 of modern capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, the late enlightenment, the Romantic movement, abolition, feminism, etc,… and socialism, with Marx/Engels appearing just after the divide period. The modern transition shows effects in art, philosophy, religions, economics, music, literature to a degree that is almost beyond belief in its richness. To reduce all to economic categories was a sad mistake.
Marxists (and others) would do well to consider the non-random character of their history and its backdrop. Let me note the difference of early and later Marx and the appearance of ponderous theory that cannot do justice to the situation as it emerged in first the modern transition, and then the nineteenth century. Marx’s basic gesture however is highly significant and gives an amplification to the seminal socialist/communist birth of ideas from the early modern through the French Revolution. A prophet indeed, but one who fizzled after 1848 (what else could he do). But historical materialism was never really needed for this and has confused the issue of socialism completely. World history is far more structured and abstract in a dynamic of creative evolution of some kind and cannot be reduced to economic categories. Scientism can’t allow history the distinction of facts and values, a disastrous self-inflicted wound.
I fear however that Marxists are frozen forever in the format given by Marx and Engels. Best to start over and consider a quite different dynamic here.
Cf. Decoding World History, WHEE, and Last and First Men, prior to the Last Revolution. These are very simple models based on empirical data, not theory, although the descriptive evaluation of the visible dynamic seems like theory, but it is far from that.

From The Last Revolution Modernity, the Modern Transition, the Divide We might reiterate our opening statement about system collapse by putting it in the context of the ‘eonic effect’: Although we will leave the model of the eonic effect in the background, the basic periodization of that dynamic is easy and suggests a perspective to deal with system collapse: we should distinguish the ‘eonic sequence of transitions’, the modern transition, its divide, and the modern period as such that follows. The modern transition is densely packed with eonic innovations which are only barely realized and too often damped out by the high tide of capitalism. The system thus has immense reserve potential beyond the superficial realizations of the ‘modern period’. this gobbledegook terminology is obscure at first, but always ‘mere periodization’ followed by careful empirical study until we suddenly see what the larger system is doing and get a feel for the historical tides in action. The modern period suggests dozens of recovery vehicles, and this kind of issue emerged early in the wake of the first socialists who sensed immediately that a new modernity was possible. The later confusions and sophistries of postmodernism can nonetheless remind us that while ‘modernity’ has no ‘post’ as an interval of 2400 years, it can be critiqued as to its realizations in place and the system dynamic of the eonic effect allows revolutionary/reformist restarts. We have critiqued Marx, but his instincts were right: he sensed a ‘discrete/continuous’ dynamic, the reason for his system of discrete epochs in the continuous stream of history. But the process transcends the economic and blends facts and values in a dynamic of reason, ethics, and aesthetics. Note the spectacular moment of the modern divide ca. 1800 and the clustering of massive innovations.

Source: The eonic model, the ‘divide’ and the spectacular correlations of Israelitism, Jainism, Buddhism – The Gurdjieff Con

Email from Verso…

I am not too familiar with Verso as such, but one can tell a bourgeois capitalist org without too much effort. This is a prime bastion of the ‘leftist/Marxist’ bourgeoisie and as such off limits to me. Fifty or so books a year (or more) to sell to libraries and the authors mostly unpaid, nice work if you can get it. They would never publish anything by me: I expose the Darwin racket, even among Marxists, among other heresies.
Times have changed: NO MORE BOOKS ON THE LEFT EXCEPT SELP_PUBLISHED books with free versions. Consider Descent of Man Revisited: after the whole university professariat waffles on Darwin, a lone ranger has to write an expose of the scientific fraud. No Marxist, let alone Verso, could manage that. Consider The Last Revolution (and/or Last and First Men): self-published, in Kindle, and paperback, with free copies. This book actually takes the work of Marxists and does it for them: what are the prospects of revolution, what are the problems with the Marxist legacy, why was Marx such a dogmatic authoritarian, why can noone on the left critique Marxism, why are all the Verso celebrities too scared to discuss revolution? Could Marxists please stop blabbering about the working class and actually examine that. I spent fifteen years wandering the west, examining the working class, riding freight trains, eating out of dumpsters, working at working class jobs, and at the end of that, completely broke.
The publishing format is actually superior despite amateurish goofs to that of professional publishers who can’t expend effort beyond the routine methods of printing: too expensive. An outsider can do a lot better with the software now available, e.g. Adobe Indesign. Big publishers can’t make money unless they just dump text into boring format.

I recommend breaking through the Marx cult/monopoly to rethink the left. The world is about to self-destruct and noone can seem to respond beyond still more books from verso.
Anyway the idea that marxists represent the working class is actually insulting.

Verso Books is the largest independent, radical publishing house in the English-speaking world.

Source: Verso