Chomsky has a lot of good videos on the issues of marxism/socialism, etc…at Youtube: check the sidebar to this:
Chomsky makes a good point about ‘marxism’ using the name of an individual: a severe sign that a cult of personality is at work. One part of my constant insistance on updating ‘marxism’ was just that mindset of a cult: it is VERY difficult to challenge any aspect of ‘marxism’ and the same mentality of the cult pervades all discussion.
It is worth reading Jacques Barzun’s Darwin, Marx, Wagner, a book written in 1942: Wagner apart, the book unwittingly exposes the rigidity of marxism (and darwinism) by showing how all the arguments trying to critique marxism emerged almost immediately before the turn of the twentieth century. But all of that is forgotten now, and the style of marxist discourse is far too dogmatic and cliche-ridden.
But the idea of communism won’t go away, for reasons cogent critics of marxism fail to notice. First the communist idea predates Marx/Engels (not by much, Thomas More and the Levellers apart) and emerges in form after the French Revolution: it need not logically depend on marxism. Personally I think a radically revised marxism could work, but in any case the issue of postcapitalism is not logically bound in any absolute way by the bolshevik experiment.
The significance of communism is inherent to discussion, at least if the spell cast by ‘capitalism’ is exposed to view. That is the way reality is: a strong pair of opposites rarely settles on one pole. A metaphysical instant proverb, but it seems the case that 1. capitalism isn’t very well depicted by its fans, and 2. communism has never been defined (as Marx regrettably insisted) and bolshevism was an almost grostesque ad hoc invention of circumstances: the whole effect of planning was totally absent at the start. Planning has a fairly good record in capitalist contexts (WWII) no less.
The state (here NY state) collects sales tax on all the hotdogs eaten at Coney Island. You have no case to say that economic orgnanization down to micro levels can’t work.
In any case, in the eventuality of supercrisis, viz. climate change, a Stalinist system would emerge to control a dangerous situation./ And capitalists would create it, with key exceptions. \
Debating revolution is always ‘mostly bullshit’ from those who have any kind of income and social place.
Revolution is legitmate because millions to billions are covertly de-socialize for the convenience of an elite. Such people are the de facto dead. Rebellion against this situation requires no OK from that elite. Almost all other views are complicit with social murder.