We have tried to sound the warning that marxism in its current form is not a viable formulation at this point. Over and over we have tried to suggest ways to upgrade the legacy and to discard its liabilities.
The moment of crisis is here and the right has its fascist experiment underway, while marxists are thumb twiddlers who have nothing to offer. The potential of a neo-communism remains and the left could easily re-adapt much of the older marxism to something novel and ready to use.
We have suggested using the era of the 1840’s as an historical foundation, and the Communist Manifesto as a basic perspective. But from there the whole game has to be reconstructed, the later work of Marx/Engels taken as more history. The minute you try to force feed Capital and its theories on radicals you end up in terrain taken to pieces over and over again by hostile critics, too often much smarter than deadbeat marxists who haven’t a clue on any level. I am looking at two books, two masterworks by Poles who lived through Stalinism and don’t take it lying down and who make the whole marxist game hard to even talk about. But in fact those critics have a basic mistake: the example of bolshevism isn’t the real model possible for a new future. Dump all of that/ The case for capitalism has itself failed and something has to be reconstructed from marxism. But most of the problems with marxism were pointed to early and date from the late nineteenth century and yet are ignored by marxists who are thus condemned to live within their isolated cultic boundary. This leaves actvists paralyzed.
But the hard realization that marxism in its current form has no second chances will drive the core groups to recreate their basic framing of the subject.