We have been hard on Sanders but even today we suggested, or at least considered, that he run, cf. the article from Commons Dreams, Ten Reasons Why Sanders Should Run in 2020. I kinda like the guy, going ‘off with his head’ here smacks of inconsistency. The reason in fact is that his thinking is unclear and could go either way: he just might be a real crypto-socialist and stealth-seed a revolution, chuckle. But he should be honest and if he is a socialist he should be held to account to socialist platforms, such as the expropriation of capital, a very touchy issue for Clintonite democrats, one daren’t mention Wall streeters.
The issue we raise is no quibble. If Sanders got elected he would have to turn the CIA on real socialists and communists, a betrayal so grotesque Sanders would be charged with a variant of false-flagging. His is a de facto false flag op already because he is using someone else’s flag, with the result, just more than possibly, of getting them killed because his followers and the real socialists will end up fighting each other. It is in fact an old situation, Mensheviks/Bolsheviks, but different now because back then the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘commnunism’ were fairly clear as to their meaning.
In fact Sanders may have eliminated himself here. Even so a false usage of the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘revolution’ ironically gives them venue and a kind of publicity…You can’t get away with the strategy Sanders has adopted. He could end up with the blood of real socialists on his hands.
Sanders may as well run but the left needs to be wary of his corruption of the meaning of socialism and revolution. We need a revolution toward socialism.
If he uses the term ‘Our Revolution’ let’s take him at his word in the real sense.
Sanders’ version is an ego trip that centers on one person not a movement, and would likely end up blocked by the Senate, eight more wasted years…
The crisis of the planet needs IMMEDIATE revolutionary action. The term ‘revolution’ means violent overthrow of governments. If Sanders makes one peep of protest against ‘Our Revolution’ taken to mean that he is a running dog and counterrevolutionary
Should Bernie Sanders be the Left’s presidential candidate in 2020? Hamilton Nolan and Bhaskar Sunkara revive the great American tradition of arguing about Bernie online.
Source: Let’s Talk Bernie 2020
We have suggested many times that Venezuela shows the way the left has failed to produce any viable models of socialist reconstruction. Venezuela is thus turning in circles trying to find a path that doesn’t exist because noone can build a workable socialist economy.
It is not that hard and all the elements are there, but the opportunity could slip away. Continue reading ” Venezuela turning in circles of socialist incoherence: our DMNC type model can resolve the contradictions almost at a glance…”
UBI is really a substitute for socialism: why not an integrated version with a larger framework such as our ‘democratic market neo-communism’?
Calls for a Universal Basic Income have been increasing, most recently as part of the Green New Deal introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and supported in the last month by at least 40 members of Congress. A Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a monthly payment to all adults with no strings attached, similar to Social Security.
Source: Universal Basic Income Is Easier Than It Looks | Portside
This situation is sufficiently lamentable, but even more unfortunate is the fact that many people who call themselves Marxists are equally ignorant of the writings of Marx and Engels. In my experience, even many people who consider themselves to be Marxist cadres rarely bother to plumb the depths of Marxist theory in all its richness and variety. All too often they merely skate over the surface, repeating thoughtlessly a few slogans and quotes taken out of context which they have learned by rote, the genuine content of which remains a closed book for them.
Source: Introduction to the Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism – part three
The marxist rubbish peddled ad infinitum at marxist.com has been useful target practice from this source as we have tried to critique Marx, but from the left in a consideration of a neo-communism. Alan Woods is lamenting the public’s ignorance of Marx and Engels but maybe that is an opportunity at a time when it has become essential to recast the platforms of the left into a new version/upgrade. Marx had many insights, e.g. into the emergence of class in civilization, but they all get lost in the rubbish of theory that emerged from the premature sociological analysis so ponderously considered by Marx, who toiled away at the masterwork he was so significantly unable to complete. Leftists would do better to simply leave this literature behind and recast the canon in some new form, mindful to be sure not to betray the projected socialist future with some coopted version, carefully considering the issue of social democracy from Bernstein onward as it arose out of the corpus, still a controversial alternate universe that might preempt real social transformation if we are either seduced or misled, or finally left with it as a last resort. With bolshevism the revolutionary idea simply struck out: we must not contaminate future efforts with its tragic muddle.
It may be too late: at time when we need a sensible transition to a new society marxists and their religion threaten to make a sane future abort in the name of Marx’s theories. Marxists seem unaware of how much people hate marxism/Marx.
The left would have to start over in any case just to get a public hearing.
So while critical of marxism we have tried not to water down the revolutionary implications of socialism emerging from the French Revolution, thence it seems, to be hijacked by Marx/Engels, unless of course we do that with dialectical deliberation (we use the term ‘dialectic’ deliberately in a default meaning: debate, duality, etc…): the Bernie Sanders’ of this age are not ignorable.
Let’s face it, there were a lot of alternate paths to a framework for the left but the domination of Marx is a strange phenomenon in itself. The year is 2018 and still the hopeless muddle of dialectical materialism is being promoted as a foundation in theory for a vast social transformation. It is almost sickening: people were shaking their heads already in the nineteenth century at this Hegelian garbage. Preoccupation with the subject condemns marxists to marginality at this point.
We need to start over and craft an upgrade that leaves behind the term ‘marxism’, addresses the issues of economy, class, socialism in clear language that is empirically based and not cursed with the arrogant pseudo-brilliance of Marx pedants. The Marx/Engels saga of the 1840’s makes a useful historical background with the classic Manifesto as a useful episode and exit point. The whole useless mess of historical materialism/dialectical materialism should not arise again except in a critique of poor theories.
The worst aspect of marxism here is the way its ‘stages of production’ theory has made leftists think socialism is inevitable without specifying in advance what that should be. The result was the bolshevik calamity with the details worked out by Stalin.
Socialists deserve another chance but not if they produce a platform that can’t disentangle from marxism and the idiot cadre of marxist true believers.
Without commenting on this article as a whole we note our critique of stages of production theory from Marx and warn that no automatic transition to socialism will occur in some scheme of laws of the type proposed in marxism. Continue reading ” Neo-socialism: the need for definitions…Noone on the left knows what they are talking about”
Red Forty-eight Group: the question of revolution…that would mean ‘now’ May 24th, 2016 • Source: The issues of revolution – Darwiniana
Source: The issues of revolution – 1848: The Ends of History