The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures //Decoding World History: beyond historical scientism

Latest Version:
The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver_1Az_11_26_21

This is a new version of The Last Revolution (almost the same as prev…I have changed my mind several times on the title: but the Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures is more popular than PC Futures: The Lst Rev).
The book is a companion to: Decoding World History, but the complexity and detail of that book is not needed. That said, the new ‘model of history’ is in essence very simple. The complexity arises only with the need to study an immense number of books to get a handle on global diversity.

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

It is important to see how the chronology provided in DCD_WH and the Lst_Rev is sufficient for a new left view of world history. It is far better to not try and theorize history using bad science models. It is strange that Marx did that and in the process undermined the whole perspective on the left.

The left needs a broad perspective: trying to win the battle of idealism versus materialism is a waste of time and alienates a clear majority of the population plus
leftists.

Also, as in post on Hayek today (below), the model in The Lst_Rev repairs the problem in older Marxism of socialism and freedom. Bolshevism handed victory to the right and Hayek was rubbing it in, to no avail since his own view is flawed. But Hayek echoes the calculation debate started by Mises and the issue is dealt with in The_Last_Revolution by bringing markets into socialism in a new form that is postcapitalist

 Marxists laughing stocks to call Kant a dead end…???

I was critical of Woods’ History of Philosophy but tried to be less negative in a second attempt, but his work is ruined by the attempt to call Kant a dead end. That is typical of the wreckage of historical culture created by ‘historical materialists’ and their narrow visions. A good example is the chapter, The Dead End of Kant. As a socialist one winces at the kind of blanket judgment that leaves cultural history in a shambles. Kant is no dead end, but the inventor for a new aspect of idealism. Foar what earthly reason do ‘socialists’ have to trash Kant on the way to their vaunted new culture? It is like defacing exhibits in a museum.The left in the era of Hegel got sidetracked into a useless debate of materialism versus idealism which turned the whole Marx project into a one-sided monstrosity unable to evaluate culture and bent on narrow visions. And they can’t handle a Kant. What an instant mess. But in a strange outcome the ‘dialectic’ somehow survived into Marxism, but it is a narrow version, much vaunted as a ‘materialist’ dialectic. But the dialectic was always materialist, as in the classic Samkhya with its triads of ‘triadic’ versus ‘dual’ dialectic (the opposition of a pair of opposites versus some barely known three term non-dual version). But the dialectic has no real explication in Marxism. It is strange orphan in Marx and made into a universal and final version of an idea already distorted. So what will happen in Marx world when yogis attempt to do the dialectical triadic Sankhya yoga: will they be liquidated by a Stalin in chard of all thinking on dialectic? etc… Attacking Kant is typical of the amputations of Marxists of cultural history. Kant is open to critique, obviously, but to dismiss him thus is grotesque. And he is the ultimate source of a dialect before Hegel turned that into a mishmash of trinitarian Christianity and mystical thinkers like Boehme. The ‘dialectic’ in dual or triadic versions is a complicated subject and still unresolved even by yogis who has realized mysterious states of consciousness. To reduce to a post-Hegelian trinket won’t work. The sad reality is that philosophy after Kant started downhill to reach finally the philosophic realm of Rorty. The passage via Hegel/Marx was the first step down. Brilliant as both are. Transendental idealism has a better popular version in Schopenhauer, unfortunately no leftist, but a keen student of the real significance of Kant.

The eonic model would work better: it is completely generalized and stands beyond materialism and idealism, and shows the historical reality of both. The model is a periodization of world history and doesn’t dogmatize about some mysterious law of history or science of such. It simply shows each stage as empirical and points to economies as secondary processes inside civilizations. Economies can overtake societies but they never determine the fate of civilization as such which has its own process of creative evolution. Cleary capitalism has overtaken a whole civilization and then turned malignant. It is easy to bring in a modified marxism there, if it can be melted down and recast. The debate over materialism and idealism is simply not more than a side issue. Both are very much in evidence in modern ‘secular humanism’ freed of its crackpot versions we see in so many versions of rank scientism. A true humanism looks at the mental process in its material and ideal aspects in search of a higher unity. And the dialectic can never be a Marx monopoly in its reductionist narrowness.

I was very critical of Woods, as his book came out, but I hadn’t read it, although I did read his Reason In Revolt. This summary is useful and suggests the context in which ‘dialectical…

Source: Marxism’s contracted philosophic mess of pottage – 1848+: The End(s) of History

R48G: toward a new revolutionary option as the crisis of the planet threatens destruction: The Last Revolution (ver_1az_11_26_21)

The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver_1Az_11_26_21

This version is closing in on a completed, short, book. It would be easy to make it twice as long but something more than bullet points but less than a ponderous tome is needed. American society has long since been turned into a crypto-fascist oligarchy at the mercy of a capitalist class so deranged they cannot for the life of them grasp the coming ecological danger. It has no real future save as a kind of imperial monstrosity of capitalist ecocide. Starting over is the only real option.

A new left is easily constructed and we should welcome the Marxist world to consider this much simpler approach. But Marx does better as part of an historical introduction: we must take it up from there, as he himself indicated. The terms ‘marxist’ and ‘marxism’ are banned from discussion. The legacy of Bolshevism must be disowned. The issue of the working class is up in the air: it is a global phenomenon that needs a version of our ‘DMNC’ based on the ‘working class. In the US the working class is really a part of the middle class: it is not revolutionary, but there is a simple and elegant solution: the working class and the Universal class: the latter is all classes together, and the definition of ‘working class’ is ambiguous: it is either the old-fashioned industrial working class and/or those who are wage laborers and/or those who are passive with respect to capitalist domination: note that a ‘sliding’ class can exploit the ambiguity and create a supercharged new version of the working class, a part or the whole as multiple classes, moving toward the equality of all in a Universal class. In this context, a nerw international can at once address the local an global working class in its slider ambiguity. Continue reading “R48G: toward a new revolutionary option as the crisis of the planet threatens destruction: The Last Revolution (ver_1az_11_26_21)”

marxists are to blame for their own demise: the (revolutionary) left must be postmarxist///Is This the Left that Jacobin Wants?: Chris Maisano’s Perilous Drift Towards Post-Marxism 

One thing is clear now: a radical/revolutionary left must be postmarxist.
Marxists have made a hopeless confusion out of their own legacy. And in part, the problem lies with Marx, who tried to make socialism/communism a Marxist monopoly. In fact, he succeeded and the result is that activists end up in a dilemma as here. The Left is in a ridiculous condition: to try and build socialism inside the Democratic party has to be the dead-end of the new century. But they can see that a third party is virtually impossible. No doubt this is because of the way such things are rigged, but before Bolshevism such parties were abundant, with, to be sure, great resistance in the US. But the fact remains that after 1989, the Marxist left has stalled in its own refusal to account for their failures. Thirty years later the Marxist group is still chanting boilerplate Marxism, refuses any criticism whatever of the canon, worships Marx as some infallible prophet, and expects to convert the public to historical materialism as the master philosophy superior to all others. Continue reading “marxists are to blame for their own demise: the (revolutionary) left must be postmarxist///Is This the Left that Jacobin Wants?: Chris Maisano’s Perilous Drift Towards Post-Marxism “

The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures //Decoding World History: beyond historical scientism

Latest Version:
The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver_1Az_11_26_21

This is a new version of The Last Revolution (almost the same as prev…I have changed my mind several times on the title: but the Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures is more popular than PC Futures: The Lst Rev).
The book is a companion to: Decoding World History, but the complexity and detail of that book is not needed. That said, the new ‘model of history’ is in essence very simple. The complexity arises only with the need to study an immense number of books to get a handle on global diversity.

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

It is important to see how the chronology provided in DCD_WH and the Lst_Rev is sufficient for a new left view of world history. It is far better to not try and theorize history using bad science models. It is strange that Marx did that and in the process undermined the whole perspective on the left.

The left needs a broad perspective: trying to win the battle of idealism versus materialism is a waste of time and alienates a clear majority of the population plus
leftists.

Also, as in post on Hayek today (below), the model in The Lst_Rev repairs the problem in older Marxism of socialism and freedom. Bolshevism handed victory to the right and Hayek was rubbing it in, to no avail since his own view is flawed. But Hayek echoes the calculation debate started by Mises and the issue is dealt with in The_Last_Revolution by bringing markets into socialism in a new form that is postcapitalist

The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures //Decoding World History: beyond historical scientism

The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist futures_(ver_fnl_4ax_11_18_21)

This is a new version of The Last Revolution (almost the same as prev…I have changed my mind several times on the title: but the Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures is more popular than PC Futures: The Lst Rev).
The book is a companion to: Decoding World History, but the complexity and detail of that book is not needed. That said, the new ‘model of history’ is in essence very simple. The complexity arises only with the need to study an immense number of books to get a handle on global diversity.

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

It is important to see how the chronology provided in DCD_WH and the Lst_Rev is sufficient for a new left view of world history. It is far better to not try and theorize history using bad science models. It is strange that Marx did that and in the process undermined the whole perspective on the left.

The left needs a broad perspective: trying to win the battle of idealism versus materialism is a waste of time and alienates a clear majority of the population plus
leftists.

Also, as in post on Hayek today (below), the model in The Lst_Rev repairs the problem in older Marxism of socialism and freedom. Bolshevism handed victory to the right and Hayek was rubbing it in, to no avail since his own view is flawed. But Hayek echoes the calculation debate started by Mises and the issue is dealt with in The_Last_Revolution by bringing markets into socialism in a new form that is postcapitalist

 Lewontin?? historical materialism and dialectical materialism stand with natural selection as ideological fictions, next to bullshit marxism…time to move on

Lewontin is a complicated figure but in the end, he toe’d the line on Darwinism, though one suspects he knew it was problematical.
Meanwhile, in a third article today from MR, we have a distillation of the entire range of Bullshit Marxism: historical materialism, dialectical materialism, applied to further confusion of an already confused biology stuck forever in the statistical illusion of natural selection. The entire field of biology is incapable of seeing through the confusion of their theory of evolution. A case of ideological hypnosis indeed, and the Marxist realm, great experts on capitalist ideology pass its worst instance with more garbage on histomat and ?? diamat. Evolution is not clarified by dialectical reasoning, at least in the form that Marxists have produced

The core imperative here if for biologists to drop the natural selection theory and drop the claim for a science of evolution based on the ‘mechanism’ of random evolution. Until scientist can be honest with themselves and Marxists extricate from their mythological theory, the issue of biological evolution will remain a total muddle.

Dialectical materialism combines two philosophical traditions: historical materialism formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and dialectics, an idealist philosophy formulated by German philosopher Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Source: Richard Lewontin, dialectical materialism, the relationship between evolutionary biology and Marxism | MR Online

 Planet burns as the left fiddles, marxism defunct, worst case to be the case?

Update/comment: the left is dominated by the legacy of Marx, and yet it is dysfunctitonal because noone trusts it anymore: we have emphasized the need to start from scratch, with very little time: our text The Last Revolution shows how that can be done… The powers that be, looking at the left, know they don’t have any real opposition and can do what they please. Non-violent tactics and Gandhians evoke derision and induce further extremes.

All the worst warnings against capitalism have proven true, and worse. And yet the left is suffering its own double failure, reformist and revolutionary. The situation calls for a transformation beyond capitalism but the left has suffered collapse beyond recovery, it seems. Our criticisms of Marxism are a reminder that that failed and now stalled/asleep faction is essentially inert, powerless and defunct, chitchat at marxmail

Source: Opinion | Biden Cannot Be Held Hostage on Climate: The US Is Needed Globally | Isabella Shraiman

Some posts on China, socialism and DMNC

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/07/03/dmnc-and-american-creeping-fascism-and-chinas-colonial-capitalism-gangster-stalinism-and-orwellian-gulag-system/

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/06/27/our-dmnc-failsafe-model-china-is-a-neoliberal-gangster-state-it-is-not-a-communist-realization-100-year-anniversary-why-do-people-join-the-chinese-communist-party/

https://redfortyeight.com/2020/09/07/china-attempting-to-invent-our-dmnc/

https://redfortyeight.com/2021/09/29/repost-with-update-market-socialism-and-dmnc-calculation-debate/

China’s pseudo-socialism…//Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners

Chinese pseudo-communism should be disowned by real socialists so that a new analysis and framework can work toward a real social transition to post-capitalism. Marxists are incompetent on such a subject and their perspective essentially forestalls any future for socialism in countries such as the US, always a hard case to be sure. We have a lot of posts on this here: we have constructed a new model: democratic market neo-communism, breaking with the failed legacies using Marxism/Bolshevism. The Chinese case is a failure: it cannot achieve democracy, it is a stooge of capitalist global powers despite its appearance, and is a dangerous exemplar attempting to spread its own version/propaganda to global Marxist movements. China murdered a million capitalists at the start. Is that the model for the rest of the socialist left? Clearly, a new socialism must disconnect with the whole morass of naive confused Marx idiots who promote the way into a new system at which point they are liquidated.
The realm of Marxist movements in the West is played out, and Cuba apart has no successes of any kind, with Cuba being itself anomalous.
We have suggested the need for failsafed terminology next to a complete break with Marxist and its failed theories: you must work at once in multiple categories: democracy and authority, socialist markets and planning, creating a Commons beyond state capitalism and a Marxist/Communist bourgeoisie, and an ecological context with legal definitions and ecological courts.
The Chinese example with its cognitive dissonance of terminology is beyond the realm of Marxist comprehension which is a latent Stalinist perspective.
The Chinese almost discovered our idea of socialist markets (next to planning sectors) but the result is still inside the global capitalist nexus.

Socialism with Chinese CharacteristicsA Guide for ForeignersRoland BoerSpringerISBN: 978-981-16-1621-1

Source: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners | Portside