Sanders has played a dangerous game, and at this point he may have sunk the chances for socialism to boot. I could be wrong: a miracle could happen if the produces a democratic House and Senate. But we were there before with Obama who sold out his followers. Can we expect anything better from Clinton, or for that matter, the new Sanders…
Anyway who did what Sanders did isn’t going to be much of a leader at this point.
It’s not about resting on your laurels; it’s about fighting the good fight.
Source: Bernie Sanders Makes a Powerful Case for Continuing the Revolution—Under a Clinton Administration | Alternet
I have refused to comment on the Clinton/Trump campaign (I am not a Sanders follower and don’t take his advice here to vote for Clinton, ask me in December) but this article raises some related issues: socialism is becoming popular but given the current marxist left it is likely to abort and leave a new generation with no real revolutionary options (electoral or not). The shifting perspectives aren’t getting any leadership from anywere. Gill Stein’s movement is pretty close to useless and the socialist left has no real movement, but a critically important marxist core perspective now larded with its old-fashioned out date boilerplate, its muddle of Leninism/Trotskism, etc, etc…
I am a little unfair, and this is a useful article, but we need a revolutionary party, and an international movement. We can’t expect much from the fat cat american working class who have no solidarity with anything anymore.
We need a whole new approach. Let it have a marxist flavor, but something that recreates everything from scratch
The left should take note: a positive review of Wolfe’s book from the right at commentary. The (marxist) left has been outplayed by the right (Bible Belt, and now the general secular right).
The left refuses to even look at my leftist critique of evolution. In fact the marxist left is being…left behind here.
You can follow the whole commentary with the tag/search: http://darwiniana.com/?s=going+through+WHEE+%28tag%29
We move from the Axial Age to modernity and set up the discussion for a solution to its riddle in the following sections. We throw the curve ball: modernity as an ‘evolutionary’ discussion. Our new semantics in the model to come will allow this, in a special sense: the distinction of the early modern and the modern era as such will allow us to apply our evolutionary framework and its interpretation of the progression of world eras.
Source: 1.2.1 Decoding Modernity
This fascinating article hardly mentions marxism, making my point that the classic legacy doesn’t quite attract critics of capitalism! This could be reticence, or I could be wrongly reading it, but, whatever the case, the left desperately needs a version of post-marxist framing of the basic legacy, with clarity on the issues of revolution, and some form of neo-communism.
In 1946, George Orwell pondered the fragility of the capitalist order.Reviewing the work of the influential theorist James Burnham, Orwell presaged several concepts that would later form the groundwork for his best-known novel, 1984.”Not only is the best of capitalism behind us, but the worst of it may lie just ahead.”
Source: Capitalism Is Doomed — Without Alternatives, So Are We | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The ominous calls came as courts temporarily froze the referendum process to investigate thousands of fraudulent signatures submitted in the first phase.
Source: Venezuela Opposition Cries Foul, Calls for Coup Against Maduro | News | teleSUR English
It’s time for our leaders to stop talking about #climatechange and start working together to solve it. Agree? Add your name:
Source: Support Leaders Making Climate Solutions A Reality | Climate Reality
Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution.
Source: Strange Signals from the Stars — Another Case Study of the Design Inference – Evolution News & Views
The Kingdom of Speech Here: When The Kingdom of Speech, Tom Wolfe’s new book-length essay, was published in late summer, it received generally respectful
Source: Andrew Ferguson reviews Wolfe’s Kingdom of Speech at Commentary | Uncommon Descent
Engineering animals with CRISPR can help biologists to understand the genes behind some of evolution’s most dramatic changes.
Source: What a Legless Mouse Tells Us About Snake Evolution – The Atlantic
Mosul has been a dangerous place since the US-led invasion of 2003. It is the greatest Sunni Arab city of Iraq during an era in which the Sunni had lost their old predominance and have struggled ag…
Source: 13 Years of War: Mosul’s Frightening and Uncertain Future
It’s better for animals, it’s better for people, and it may even taste better than the real thing.
Source: Lab-Grown Meat Is the Future of Food: Are You Ready to Take a Bite? (Video) | Alternet
Our discussion of democratic market communism is two sided, and can be useful as no more than an abstraction: it is enforces the suggestion of what is logically needed, next to what is logistically possible. It seems that what is possible is so narrow at this point that if anything we must be ‘unrealistic’ and go for the larger issues, revolution lurking in the background as the impossible/possible.
In reality the issue is partly a question of agencies external to the US, as desirable as it might be to ‘turn’ the american juggernaut. We can see Venezuela on the brink, Brazial beset by the neoliberals, next to Chile/Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and finally Columbia mostly ironically unable to close on its peace process. Clearly a larger movement can realize the anti-imperialist struggle in tandem with an attempt at the impossible: overcoming the odds with respect to the clever totalitarian system now in place. I think that convergent issues, not least the question of climate are going to deprive the neoliberal dictatorship of its overwhelming powers of domination. We see that already, e.g. with the american election cycle with the surprise realization a new generation can use the term ‘socialism’ without blinking.
Whatever the case we must act as if revolutionary change is possible and necessary, and this in itself will generate opportunity. Almost more to the point is that the left is not ready with a platfrom: we have suggested a heavily modified marxist, or post-marxist platform with a generic blueprint of market neo-communism.
The problems with marxism are considerable and the whole foundation is too theoretically unstable. A simpler historical matrix would work better. We don’t need a master theory of economic history to proceed. Something like the rough analysis of the macro model in WHEE would actually work better: it is a slight variant in the end of simple chronological history with the issues of values built in.
Whatever the case, the left is going to get one last chance for its options: it can’t afford to blow it with cliche marxists issuing boilerplate. The whole left needs to recreate as soon as possible an echoing yet discontinuous version of the kind of discourse created by Marx/Engels.
I often wonder how many marxists have read Main Currents of Marxism: the opposition sank marxism long ago…as a closed theory. You can plow the field of this rich resource and recast the basic points in all sorts of ways. But the tenacious hold of habit is almost as dangerous as capitalism. The cycle of mechanical thought will proceed from Marx/Engels to Lenin to Stalin with almost causal logic. We need a fresh set of ideas that hasn’t been finished off by the logical endgames of old internationales.
As much as I admire Marx his work is dated now in many ways. In addition his generation was challenged by the Kantian ethical socialists, and this parallel universe as a reserve army in the rear is all marxists have left at this point. The whole shebang of dialectical materialism, historical materialism is caput. Face it. The left needs about ten conferences with titles like ‘Recreating communist activism beyond Marx…etc. And the issue of ecological communism is just about number one the agenda notes.
Whatever the case with our question in the title the reality is that slow evolutionary change is probably going to fail. And too much of the left knows this but obsessively repeats failed formulas.
The issue of the humanities is too encased in traditional mostly literary categories (more power to it): the real question is that as we move from a science of physics to a (none such yet) science of history dynamical closure as causal ‘total information determination’ yields to open-ended systems where ‘extra information’ is always needed to understand ‘what happened’. It is like the difference between a play with a fixed plot, and improvisation: you must record ‘historically’ after the play what were the improvised incidents. This actually happens in physics: three body problems don’t compute and are ‘summarized’ in approximations.
The issue of the humanities in some related sense is critical to the study of history (and evolution) because we must study historically the associated data corresponding to a set of situations that are open ended. That’s a bit abstract, but the point in simple terms is that we can’t reduce cultural history to determinate logic: we must study all the details of history and culture in great detail and the humanities are the only educational field that does this. Strictly speaking even the history of science is a field of the humanities.
Countless articles, books, blogs, and talks from academe to TED have addressed the question of the “value” of the humanities or liberal arts. The status of this field of knowledge is clearly felt t…
Source: Once More, the Value of the Humanities
The most consequential statement by Secretary Clinton in last night’s debate was her pronouncement that a no-fly zone over Syria could “save lives and hasten the end of the conflict,” that a no-fly…
Source: War or Peace?
The Frankfurt legacy was bypassed momentarily in my discussions of a new postmarxism. This is both an appropriate additional caesura with the past, but also potentially a way to reinvoke the spirit of that phasing movement in a new key, and in a new movement. But the sophistication of the movement belies its poor foundations in marxism, to which it is tethered with various assumptions of that ism, along with the graceful but usually shoddy reckonings of the dialectic. But a future movement along the lines of the R48G should be ready to try and recast that creative moment in the expanding parallel discourses of the Marx tradition.
I think that dialectians should fall back to regroup, and increase the rigor of the subject by considering the ‘dialectic of the dialectic’, is the dialectic a serious subject, and by considering the larger history of dyadic/triadic thinking and as this echoes the ancient subject of the samkhya. Dialectic is a muddle of dyadic and triadic logics, and it is unclear how to proceed. But the moment we say this the more attached leftists will be to a subject that connects them to a larger sphere of thinking, one of great antiquity.
I meant no harm. I most truly did not. But I had to grow bigger. So bigger I got. I biggered my factory. I biggered my roads. I biggered my wagons. I biggered the loads … I went right on biggering……
Source: All Solutions are Inadequate: Why It Doesn’t Matter If Politicians Mention Climate Change
Unlike most of his published work, Slavoj Zizek?s latest essay on Islam and modernity is not left-wing at all. Rather surprisingly, he is favour of restricting the mobility of refugees within Europe and defends a whole range of Eurocentric attitudes. By Tarkan Tek
Source: A Eurocentric perspective