A far better critique than that of the enlightenment (pace, the classic Frankfurt Dialectic of the Enlightenment) would be a Dialectic of Marxism, and we have been doing little else for the last two years (and before) since the publication of Last and First Men.
First, that was a self-published book and it is a fact that attempting to work with companies like Verso, let alone mainstrain publishers, is counterpoductive. The essential critique of darwinism essentially banned the book and its relatives. Marxists are still pathetically stuck in the paradigm of darwinism. A critique or dialectic of marxism should be welcomed by marxists themselves (who are invited to consider our new framework with its manifestos) because the reality is that it has become a dogmatic cult of sophistical leftism, leninist muddle and crypto-stalinist diehards.
A dialectic of marxism needs to:
1. analyze the failure of stalinism
2. distance itself from leninism
3. consider the failure of marxist theory and the confusions of marx’s Capital
4. detach from the marxist expropriation of socialism/communism to see that the original versions were pre-marxist
5. clarify the confusion over the labor theory of value
6. transcend the dogmas of marx’s classical economics
7. study or popularize the ‘calculation’ debate
8. bring some kind of sanity to the pseudo-science of neo-classicial economics
9. expose marginalism and the abuse of calculus
10. use dialectic on the dialectic and expose the limits of ‘dialectical’ materialism
11. expose the regime of scientism and the lack of an ethical or aesthetic platform or theory…
12. critique its own socialist planning fallacies and find a resolution of the challenges to theory here…
13. invent a new subject of ecological postmarxism without the sophistry that marx was really an ecologist…
14. critique or leave behind the whole legacy of ‘marxist geniuses’ who have created an immense and overly complicated literature of fallacious junk (viz. History and Class Consciousness, the Frankfurt mode, Zizek and postmodernist confusion)
15. endure if necessary a non-violent civil war on the left to send the cadre robots packing…
a dialectic of marxism could proceed as a negation thence to a negation of a negation and recreation of a new socialism. A dialectic here is a procedure or debate not a mystical hegelian dialectic of translogical reason.
This kind of critique or dialectic is necessary where a ‘dialectic of the enlightenment’ tends to fail because marxism is in many ways a dogmatic canon and ‘one man show’ with a cultic manner of obsolete scientism while the enlightenment is already a massive dialectical universe in five versions, massive innovations in multiple failsafes stretching over two centuries with political, scientific, aesthetic, …aspects. Marxism is no match for the breadth of the enlightenment and while a critique of such is completely OK it is not so easy to deal with such a complex subject (which is far more than some putative enlightenment values, there are fifty versions of the later). By contrast marxism is far too brittle to persist into a new international and its converts are likely to make a mess of a new left at a moment of climate crisis and the end of capitalism…