History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Communism beyond marxism

December 30th, 2013 · No Comments

If anyone actually took the advice in the last post, the first thing that would happen is to stall at once over the logjam of marxist/legacy ideologies. The text of Last and First Men is an attempt to void out the marxist legacy, without necessarily abandoning it, to create a completely new ideological thrust that is neo-communist, without the liabilities of the older marxism/leninism. The left needs the net equivalent of marxism to prevent the onset of coopted/compromised versions of the pseudo-left. We don’t have to take Marx/Engels as the last answers. They were both, by the way, denounced after 1848 as reactionaries.
A few things that might help are
1. getting past the dead weight of ‘historical materialism’, an unnecessary failed theory
2. a post-darwinian view of evolution that can save the left from its own social darwinist confusions
3. a critique of economics as it is now, ditching the endless rumination over value theory, etc…
4. an intelligent stance on the history of religion, staying clear of the atheism/theism debates, a waste of time
5. constructive project of communist politics, economics. innovative foundations for rights legacies in the context of expropriating private property
6. … All we need is the great Communist Manifesto. Marx’s Capital can be a nice display on all bookshelves, as theory moves on to a refreshed set of protocols.

We are all almost dead anyway…playing it safe with anarchist fantasies is utopian….

LFM tries to do a few of these tasks, but a larger creative movement is needed. The PDF selection attempts to start with a marxist slant and then sublate to a superset of that nexus, one that speaks to a far larger domain of discourse. We can always preserve the marxist legacy as an historical resource.
The issue is not marxism but communism, or a new communism. Communism is the task of expropriating global capital and moving to a viable postcapitalism.
Marx/Engels refused to define communism in action. So we contradict nothing in their work in beginning to close in on some definitions. A properly defined comunism, that stated the basics of a new set of rights, economy, and opportunity would be able to appeal to generate a mass movement. That need not be a proletarian movement, but movement of a universal class, no doubt with the proletariat at its core. But the proletarian slant has been a failure, for reasons now clear. We have tens of millions of ‘proletarians’ by another designation, the entire population of those dominated by the reign of capital. Millions of these are excluded by the mirage of waiting for the great proletarian uprising.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment