Looking into the near future of the left one suspects a very unfortunate outcome: the marxist framework will suddenly get a second chance and then repel so many the chance will be lost.
That was my objective in Last and First Men: create a new framework with enough echoes and references to the marxist to be able to defeat the built in hatred of marxism in tens of ten thousands who are core radicals without realizing it. The foundation of communist principles endures in a mix that restates some of the insights of Marx/Engels in a fresh way. And a clear path beyond Stalinism must inspire enough confidence in those who see beyond capitalism to actually check out the question of a movement toward postcapitalism.
I may have gone too far here: for example, the question of darwinism as bad science is too much for people who might resist defying that paradigm, unaware of the way it is used to justify ideology. Darwinism is the most classic case of theory hiding ideology and the whole left fumbled the ball here and ended boobs of ideological mystification. Marx clearly saw the trap, almost immediately, but that view never survived into the 2nd Internatioinale.
It should be easy to settle this question in the neutral: Fred Hoyle clearly exposed the problem in one paragraph. But the general field of science and left is stuck on this. A mob of groups have decided to fake it here. But that solution is running on empty. An activist movement suddenly given a new chance would probably try to hold the line on darwinism, to stay with a majority opinion, and the result would be disaster: the right would love to deal with a bunch of darwin dummies on the left. The result would be a torpedo to midships. The right has spent a generation probing the flaws in darwinism, whatever the case with their dubious design ideology.
To be sure, the Darwin question is volatile: the issue could easily jacknife and produce intractable oppositions. The solution is to adopt a special kind of neutral stance. With a clear expose of the ideology being promoted in the name of science.
And so it goes in multiple directions: the left needs to move with a majority, but it has to reinvent itself for a new era. Darwinism is merely one of the key points of possible chaotification.
The list goes on of issues that need to be deftly upgraded without frittering away the classic communist legacy. I say communist (or socialist) because the issue is not marxism which came later and is but one way to make communism gel as a corpus of praxis. I think the core of Marx restated without tricky theories is enough.
There are a whole list of issues here that turn people off. The world has two or more billion monotheists, but the marxists wish to make everyone an atheist to move beyond capitalism. What on earth for? The issue of god is insoluble. Forget it. Let atheists and monotheists find a way to think about something else than religious belief.
There is a long list of issues like this. A new combination is needed to present a fresh view, without economic dogmas a century out of date, and theories of Marx that were challenged at the end of the nineteenth century no less.
Another round of baggage lies in the hopeless confusion of the dialectic. We have discussed this many times here. People like Zizek still think you can foundationalize marxism in dialectical materialism. But the subject is a dead dodo. Why not just drop it? It is the kind of nonsense that has cursed marxism. We need to find the core of marxism and restate it for a new generation, and one soon to ditch darwinism and demand something better.
We are running out of time here and the forces of compromise will take one look at the marxist sterility and lead us into a false new version, no doubt of social democratic halfway houses.
Marxists spend all their time trying to defend Marx’s dated theories. While the core of marginalist economic theory is practically howling for a refutation. But people trained to look at Marx uncritical are inevitably suckers for marginalist confusion. The left needs to travel light, and ditch theories of dubious logic, a century, to be ready to take on the bourgeois economists with a clarity beyond bad theories.