Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R4G: a record of blogging on the ‘red forty-eight group’: our blogbook continues

April 6th, 2017 · No Comments

This is going to be a short introduction to a selection of posts here from the last two years, perhaps in Kindle form.

Our basic orientation is to induce a conceptual break with the prior history of communist platforms without this discontinuity throwing out the baby with the bath. It is hard for leftists to see the problems with their legacy and the tendency to slide into dogmatism is both pernicious and hard to correct. But the classic marxist/leninist platform has been voted down in advance by the general public and that enforces the actually beneficial task of renewing the older legacy and importantly disavowing its liabilities. The question of communism is inherited from the generation before Marx/Engels in the 1840’s and does not require paying dues to the marxist legacy. Over and over discussions attempt to defend the last iota of Marx’s pronouncements and to start a discussion with a justification of the history of Lenin in the Russian revolution. A new perspective is needed.

Introduction
1. Civilization in Crisis
1.1 On the Threshold of Climate Catastrophe
1.2 Capitalism and Empire
1.3 The Deep State
1.4 9/11, Covert agencies, and Drug Mafias
1.5 The Coming of Postcapitalism
2. History and Evolution
2.2 A New Model of History
2.3 Epochs in Transition, Modernity, The Modern Divide
2.4 Secularism and Religion in World History
3. Out of Revolution
3.1 1848: Onset of a New Era
3.2 TNCM: Toward a New Communist Manifesto
3.3 Economic Theory, Market Socialisms
3.4 DMNC: Democratic Market Neo-communism
3.5 Last and First Men

Introduction

The contemporary left is a dysfunctional array of issue activisms unable to coordinate a project of social change whether revolutionary or evolutionary. But there are signs that this situation is changing. But it is important therefore to review the classic legacies, among them the marxist, to try and ‘debug’ the older traditions which are too obviously stuck in a kind of dogmatic freeze. The current moment has spawned the term ‘anthropocene’ and this not inappropriate neologism points us to the disastrous brand of ‘terraforming’ that has emerged from the industrial revolution and its capitalist false epitome. The onset of disastrous climate change has created a crisis for both American and global politics setting a challenge its political and economic axiomatic legacy and the current insanity phase induced by the election of Trump. We confront a system now bent on dismantling its EPA and its climate treaty at the point of no return in the benchmark 2C global warming. Strangely, this is a revolutionary situation demanding a full cohort of activist resistance over and above the rising tide of environmental activism that has appeared within the last generation. This situaion tokens a stage of near social psychosis and presents the left with the contradictory demands of revolutionary intervention and political continuity. A system leviathan is in place that stands as the guardian of a pseudo-democracy of capital, very much as classic socialists such as Marx and Engels predicted. Given the shift of the millennial generation toward the left it is important for many of the legacy ‘lefts’ to examine their platforms and self-debrief the histories of the marxist style bolshevik revolution(s) in order to move on into a reformulation of the basic perspective of socialism/communism of the period of 1848. This is called for due to the obsolescing character of much marxist thought, its clinging to historical and economic theories that have been repeatedly challenged with the problem of theory itself, this raising the question of the status of the social sciences in the context of scientism. And this includes the classic darwinian theory of evolution, now under siege, next to such theoretical constructs as historical materialism and its ‘stages of production’ framework. We can thus position the discussion almost back at the point of the onset of the industrial and French revolutions with the sudden crystallization of capitalist ideology followed in turn by the immediate challenge of the socialists/communists in the period of Marx/Engels. We can adopt this moment as a saga and prophecy of the future of the world system in the wake of the modern epoch and acknowledge the basic rightness of the challengers. This contextual history can be analyzed with a new analysis of world history, one that can provide a new perspective on history and evolution, in the process throwing some light on the question of economic theories in both their classical and neo-classical context.
The prospect of revolution is troubling for many who can see the handwriting on the wall but cannot evade the clear signals of failure in the case of the Russian fiasco of bolshevism. We have discussed the question in a ‘virtual revolution’ mode to allow the basic review of the whole question to break out of the dogmas of past generations on the left. But the stakes have been raised by the developing emergency of climate matched with the ‘blind men walking’ as if in a zombie trance, the spectacle of global politicians unable to extricate themselves from the capitalist octopus.
Our mini-book, which follows the logic of our two manifestos, is in three sections dealing with the basic crisis, a new view of history, and a possible solution called democratic market neo-communism… https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf
We will outline a set of discussions of this ‘virtual’ book in order to get a bird’s eye view of the basic discussion on the way to a new formulation.
1. Civilization in Crisis
The era of capitalist globalization has signaled that its world historical phase is approaching an end. This is no longer an ‘end of history’ debate, although that remains to haunt the discussion, but a confrontation with environmental apocalypse. If before we had thought markets the inevitable outcome of history we can now see that the ‘end of history’ could assume an altogether more ominous literal meaning. Discussion of such an ‘end’ tend to deal in absolutes of capitalism/communism but the issue is almost more a change of assumptions in our own minds about how the phenomenon of capitalism is to be taken. The debate over the end of history was misleading: we can have a postcapitalist system of markets under communism assumptions and constitutional foundations: we can define a whole spectrum of so-called de facto postcapitalist systems. But we cannot any longer evade our responsibility to a planet with some realization of the dangers of unrestricted capitalism. The result has been a series of dangerous absurdities, notably among the dread list the decimation of the Amazon to produce beef for the American Hamburger mania. It seems that Veganism should join communism as a firebrand issue. A communist system can be founded in the idea of the Commons, and this can coexist with several related or overlapping modes that can failsafe the outcome as experimental and open to modification. We can define a transitional hybrid that can serve to free the discourse, and its discourse from absolute definitions. Despite this flexibility this is not an exercise as such in ‘social democratic’ or ‘New-Dealist’ programs, even if this are likely to lurk in the back ground of unrealizable projects falsely labeled ‘utopian’. We need to consider the issue of evolutionary and revolutionary paths directly and to consider these in the context of an advanced transnational array of nation state economies.

In all of the discussions of the end of history we have failed to foresee that we could be left with no choice but to move beyond the era of capitalist markets. Such a movement need hardly be absolute, but it must envision the possibility of higher level control of market proliferation. Given the reality of climate change a system of unrestricted free markets will destroy a whole planet. We have dawdled in capitalist complacency as this calamity has crept up on us. And there is hardly a more severe condemnation of the capitalist mental framework than the way in which it has bewitched its ideologues to the point of ostrich denial of a transparent crisis in action. Therefore question of climate change alone forces the issue: whatever the nature and future of ‘markets’ the stark reality confronts us that completely ‘free’ markets are a malevolent anti-ecological force. We need to define an exit strategy from the obsessive generation of ecological and economic chaos generated by the ideology of such free markets.
But the question of postcapitalism can be overdefined in absolutes: as noted, we should propose a hybrid transitional system in which neo-communist foundations shepard a dialectic of opposites in a balance of powers…
More generally the whole foundation of secular modernity is threatened by the cult of capitalism and yet the two are quite different cultural givens. What do we mean by modernity and the secular? It is helpful to consider a larger view of history than the current marxist versions of economic historicism. We can avail ourselves of a classic legacy but at the same time create a kind of generalization of its premises with a new view of historical dynamics and evolutionary emergence. We live at a time when the classic darwinian theory of evolution has fallen into a range of falsifications. The use of that theory for ideological legitimation is notorious. Let us be clear: darwinism and evolutionism are not the same thing. The former is a rigid dogma about natural selection as the core dynamic of evolution. That thesis was open to objections from the start yet has persisted unreasonably due to its ideological hold on biologists, and the general public. We must suspect that this is still another aspect of the capitalist world view, especially given the evidence of social darwinist distortions of culture that have used darwinism for ideological culture control. The thesis of the ‘survival of the fittest’ lurks in a economic bastard form and this needs to be deprived of its spurious claims to science.

1.1 On the Threshold of Climate Catastrophe
As noted, the system of capitalist economy has defaulted to a runaway ecological nemesis controlled by a monopolist class mesmerized by ideological economics built on mathematical fraud and now poised to drive the system over a cliff. The American system is currently on the brink of dismantling its outstanding climate regulations. That sends the message that the political class is asleep and in the hands of lunatics. But in many ways this situation has been predicted from the start, so we have a larger fall back position as a matter of historical fact. The prescient warnings of the prophetic early socialists have never been more relevant: this system will create its own doomsday scenario. Tragically the onset of the neo-liberal era in the 1970’s was synchronous with the first realization of the threat of climate change. But the so-called ‘neo-liberal’ is really but an echo of the whole capitalist historical tragicomedy. The first warnings were sounded in the early stages of that economic counterrevolution, and yet an entire generation has been lost as the warnings have fallen on deaf ears. A series of limited measures have nonetheless been enacted, and a series of technical innovations have begun to show the way to a post-carbon era, but the capitalist capture of governmental action has produced a situation in the critical red zone: the ominous question emerges. Is it too late? We can see that without a revolutionary action to take control of the capitalist psychosis. We could be too late. The system is set to pass the projected limit of 2C temperature increase and yet even at this point the cpaitalist minset is not only unyielding but intransigent.
The tenets of self-regulating markets have been in effect falsified by the reality that the global market system cannot respond to an existential crisis. Setting them on automatic has generated a system beyond control.

1.2 Capitalism and Empire
The history of capitalism has seen a series of imperialistic economic phases, from as early as the Spanish empire of the sixteenth century. Imperialism should be distinguish from empire given the frequent core republicanism and imperialistic economism of the periphery. The distinction might fall on deaf ears among many who foresee the downfall of those republics to the decadence of the Roman Empire. But a notable fact has been the cascade of imperialisms, Spanish, Dutch, English, French and German, finally that of the American colossus with its ’empire indeed’ of militaristic capitalism. The global system is now beset with and American monstrosity of wars engineered for capitalist profit: a combined capitalist and imperialistic system transfixed by a military industrial complex that has become malevolent. This situation echoes the fate of the Second World War as it demonstrated the efficacy of military spending on the resolution of the Great Depression. This experience has colored all subsequent thinking. The famous complex of Eisenhower has graduated to the status of a new and elusively covert tyranny, open that has feed its appetite on the discovery of atomic weaponry and its maintenance. Although in some ways the attempt to control the factor of atomic weaponry induced a justification for a kind of American exceptionalism the fact remains that the realities of atomic war have fed all the worst tendencies of the global imperialists.
1.3 The Deep State
Some consider that it was the onset of the Manhattan project that produced this government in the shadows. This evidence shows that the American system has been taken over by a mysterious entity or entities often described as the ‘Deep State’, but in different senses, from Peter Dale Scott’s version to that of Lofgren in his analysis in a book called The Deep State. The period of the second world war and after indicates the threshold of the process of capture and control, although the course of American history from its beginning shows the process gestating from the start, with an early version of the disease in the Gilded Age. The questions of slavery were not resolved at the start of the American system and the result has forever cursed the outcome, next to the disastrous genocidal history of the American West.
The period of the creation of the first atomic bomb shows more, the onset of the stranglehold of covert action, secrecy, national security and techno-capitalist collusion. The Manhattan project sowed the seeds of what was to come, but the CIA took the whole system to a new dimension of Machiavellian politics.
The American system is crypto-tyrannical cabal of arbitrary and hidden powers with no public accountability. And in the context of Madison Avenue psychological techniques applied to social communication it has become a de facto psychological tyranny of brainwashing and mind control, with intimations of the 1984 saga.

1.4 9/11, Covert agencies, and Drug Mafias
This period of the second world war and the Manhattan project produced the first versions of covert action agencies, which soon were transformed into the CIA, and a host of other intelligence agencies. The rogue character of the CIA has been documented from the start with such egregious actions as the destruction of Iranian democracy and the many coups and interventions globally by an out of control agency whose legal foundations were botched from the start.
The later stages of the disease are grotesque. The evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, shockingly missed by the general left, the history of the CIA and the ‘national security state’ and an almost inconceivable corruption of government in the connection with the drug mafias. It is a significant indictment of the system as is that we cannot properly diagnose let alone deal with the corruption of the American government by the war on drugs taken as a cover for its actual pursuit by government agents.

1.5 The Coming of Postcapitalism
Almost from the start of the industrial revolution in the eigtheenth century when the era of capitalism in its current sense began the destructive and exploitative character of its action was seen as a prediction of its eventual end. The early movements of the socialists and communists produced the first abortive challenge, one that was almost terminated by the distraction of the bolshevik fiasco. The failure of that movement was a tragic delay in the formation of a genuine movement able to become the successor to the original process.
The question was never resolved by the russian era of revolution and has resurfaced as the question of the future of a planet. The question of markets is however too often confused with absolutes. We need not fully renounce the market order to move beyond capitalism as a reigning dogma: the issue is that men have a right to live in a cultural mix where they are not subject to the ‘alienation’ of markets as a fiat of capitalists. We may consider the question of market and planned economies in many ways but a fundamental axiom of fairness and economic rights must override the obsession with the fallacies of universal market dominance. We can consider the question of ‘communism’ (or neo-communism in a fresh definition) as the return of the expropriation of natural resources to a Commons, a jointly held set of ecological and economic resources freed from the ‘primitive accumulation’ of rogue capitalist powers.
The coming of postcapitalism is ironically prefigured in the ‘end of history’ moment of 1989: the Russian system collapsed on the way to a truer end of history! The era of postcapitalism is being rendered inexorable given the emerging catastrophe of planetary destruction…The term is ambiguous and requires a definition before, rather than after a revolutionary or other transition. The legacy of ad hoc ‘as you go’ constructs of the first aborted challenge to capitalism proved the undoing of the earlier internationales…The question of the ‘end of history’ has been a notable boon for propagandists: a spurious Hegelian mystification has been foisted on a public confronting the real failures of supposed communism in the history of bolshevism.

2. History and Evolution
The issue of revolutionary communism needs a new historical framework, one that has create a superset to the classic marxist legacy which can remain as a resource…
We can suggest a new lightweight version of the ‘eonic model’ which can be a useful guide to historical and evolutionary thinking…
The marxist legacy suffers from a set of theoretical confusions and has been challenged many times. The question of historical theory is intractable and the model of historical materialism with its attendant ‘stages of production’ theory is too reductionist even as it proposes a crypto-teleology. A general critique might challenge the economic interpretation of history on the grounds that history is far more than economic functionality: religion, art, science, literature, philosophy and politics, and much else show independent interrelated histories not reducible to questions of economic system that are dominant at any given point. Furthermore, marxism has become entangled with darwinism, despite marx’s cautionary remarks, and this theory has proven a liability to the left even as the foundations of natural selection theory are found wanting.
In a further critique the hegelian legacy of the dialectic has subjected marxism to a kind of mysticism in the midst of its attempt at science. And the general world view of dialectical materialism has proven to be set of pseudo-scientific propositions that can’t replace conventional science. The issue of logical systems in relation to ideas of the dialectic can remain as a research project but the mainline of proposal and platform should be wary of both non-standard logics and of hegelian subtleties.
2.1 The Politics of Evolution, the Falsification of Darwinism
The question of evolution has been controversial from the start, but became institutionalized around standard darwinism, to the dissent of many. The critique has been expropriated by the right which has expanded the challenge to darwinism with a version of the classic design argument, even as it adopts a social darwinist ideology. The suspicious abuse of ‘survival of the fittest’ theory as an ideology of business competition and class struggle has subjected the left to the vagaries of a pseudo-science. The issue of the mechanism of evolution remains unsolved by the falsified claims of random evolution. Modern biology has lost the original suggestions for a theory of evolution from the enlightenment period. It has produced a mindset fixed in institutional dogma as a form of social conditioning and an aggressive secular humanism that has created the darwin propaganda machine. Marx himself was one of the original critics of darwinism. But we need a view of evolution and history that is open to a broader set of hypotheses than those provided by scientism.

2.2 A New Model of History
How do we resolve the confusion over evolution? Biology is slowing undergoing a transformation of its internal theory but there is another way to get a rough glimpse of dynamics of evolution by looking at history. If random evolution is a fallacious perspective then an example of non-random evolution is necessary to re-orient thinking stuck in false theories. Here remarkably world history can suggest the answer: it shows an elusive yet definite structural/developmental logic that can give us the example of non-random ‘evolution’ needed. This may not fully answer to the question of evolution in deep time but it can force the stock of darwinism to plummet. The arbitrary assumptions of random evolution are seen to be grossly fallacious. Beyond that we need a view of history that is not beset by the false claims of historical laws and which can deal with questions of free agency, economic determination versus evolutionary developmentalism, and the issue of teleological directionality. In the process it should examine the place of values in a realm of facts and the issues of religion and reformation, and the place of Christianity in the birth of modern communism, beside its versioning as a concealed capitalist ideology.

This new model of history is based on the evidence of world history and its dramatic non-random aspects, which can be roughly systematized in a version of historical directionality. We can approach this starting with the dramatic evidence of the so-called axial age which shows a global process of synchronous parallelism and non-local causal effects. Attempts to understand this discovery of modern historiography lead to a related analysis of a sequential logic of discontinuity in a system operating in a frequency pattern. A stunning development. And one that is likely to remain controversial. But we don’t have to adopt a belief system about this, instead merely adopting a set of suspicions given a set of hypotheses. We see a non-random directional process in our past but we are still in this model subject to our own free agency and are not bound in a mechanical system. We do not therefore require a full theory of history to proceed, but our new suspicions make us less dogmatic about issues of evolution, teleology, and historical dynamics, even as we find renewed grounds for ‘history according to free agents’. We may take this approach to its logical limits without creating a false claim of scientific theory. We do this with a minimalist chronology of epochs ‘visible to the naked’ with a set of warnings about the relation of free agency to system dynamics. It is also open to a set of ‘deductions’ that lend plausibility to its perspective, and this shows a strong resemblance to the model of punctuated equilibrium. But we need only the barest outline of a new model of history, one that can also piggyback the rough outlines of the marxist system whose assumptions however suffer a kind of metal fatigue next to a great deal of dialectical challenge.
A look at the perspective of Kantian ethical socialism can buttress this approach and consider the form of Kantian historicism that asks for a solution to the riddle of history in a larger framework than reductionist science. Kant’s famous essay on historicism speaks of the progress to the perfect civil constitution and we can adapt this to the claim that democracy, then economic democracy, shows this very progression. We act as free agents to amend our constitutions to, viz. a postcapitalist communism, as an issue of revolutionary re-foundation. This is very different from saying that feudalism yields to capitalism thence to communism, a difficult speculative theory.
But we should adopt only the most general assumptions, and not pretend to a science of history in conventional form, instead remaining within an empirical confine.

This approach suggests the efficacy of a plan vanilla ‘discrete/continuous’ systems analysis which can show the teleological character behind historical chaos and in the process force us to take seriously ideas of the ‘evolution of freedom’, a useful end run around the usual ‘end of history’ propaganda…This can be interpreted as a progression of epochs. And this in turn can help to clarify what we mean by modernity and secularism. This is another borderline theory of Big History, but we can simply leave it in the background to an empirical outline of history using the given visible blocks of evidence taken for what they clearly suggest.

2.3 Epochs in Transition, Modernity, Divides
Our model can be reduced to the simplicity of a rough outline of world epochs with the transition to modernity in the most recent transformation of civilization. The transition concept suddenly explains the obvious issue of the explosion of the early modern from 1500 to 1800 or so, at which point a divide era emerges as the onset of the new epoch. It is significant that capitalism and communism emerge almost simultaneously at this point and the ‘dialectic’ of a new era attempting realization comes into being. Note the way this model does not produce determinate outcomes, only semi-determinate initializations. This analysis distinguishes the early modern, as a transition, and the new era itself which begins in the early nineteenth century in the wake of the immense transformation from the sixteenth century onward. This model considers then the ‘divide’ point at the end of the transitional period: it leaves a question, why was the period just before and after 1800 so massively gifted with innovations? Our model suggests an answer. And it suggests the tandem emergence of a capitalist frameworkd and a challenger, the socialist/communist movements whose prophetic action constitutes a chase plane action in the chaotic phases of free markets and their ideology…

This system is simply a reminder that a revolutionary process must distinguish teleological and the effects of free agency: the relationship changes as time goes on. A far larger process of social transformation is required than the usual version of revolutionary economism.

2.4 Secularism and Religion in World History
Our model gives us a clear rendition of the issues of religion, the Axial Age, reformations and the emergence of the secular framework. The left is the inheritor of the void left by the waning of Axial Age religion but its early Feuerbachian versions suggest the need for a larger framework. These issues were actually well analyzed by such as Kant, Schopenhauer and Hegel who brought the reformation to a close and set the religious legacies into a new evolutionary phasing still underway in our present…

2.5 The end of history, Evolution of Freedom, Free Agents
Our model gives us another version of an ‘end of history’ argument in its examination of the rising effects of free agency in a system of macro action. The term is sophistical and we see that the ‘end of history’ means better ‘historical directionality’. And that direction setting occurs before the new era begins, not at its end which is created by free agents and may deviate from initial conditions. The association of democracy and capitalism is seen to be arbitrary and the domination of free markets and its ideology, exposed as a planetary threat, falsifies the simple equation. From the beginning of the socialist movements the obvious counterargument has suggested a socialist foundation for real democracy…

3. Out of Revolution
Our model gives us a better insight into revolution in the association of revolutionary action with the early modern period. Revolutions are clearly associated with the onset of the transition of the early modern, an elegant solution to an historical riddle. But there is a warning that revolutions induced by a system effect will lapse to free agency for their completion. This might explain why the bolshevik revolution was so swiftly derailed by events. We must carefully think through the implications of early modern (democratic) revolution as freedom in one sense and the conscious later replication and realization subject to the action of free agents. Our proposal for action is to remorph cases that succeed, more or less, such as the american revolution, given the marxist analysis of its bourgeois character.
3.1 1848
The symbolic year 1848 shows the spooky timing of the emergence of communism in the ambiguous revolutions of 1848, just after the ‘divide’ period of our transition. This is hardly coincidence and shows the reification of a prophetic action in pursuit of the runaway capitalist frenzy…
3.2 TNCM: Toward a New Communist Manifesto
We can conclude by invoking our two manifestos, noting that the appearance of the original is a classic moment now highlighted by our new historical model.
That the year 1848 issued the classic manifesto of Marx and Engels is strangely ‘right timing’ at the precise point of the onset of a new era. The manifesto issued the de facto judgment that the capitalist system was flawed and could not be final. We can both echo and update/virtualize a new manifesto that attempts to realize a set of ‘hyparchic futures’, a term to be explored in another text…
3.3 Economic Theory, Market Socialisms
We need to upgrade classic marxist legacies with a close analysis of the neo-classical economic farce and its ‘theories’ as ideologies. We have a strong clue to the failures of economic science in the abuse of calculus to explicate something very different from systems analyzed by physics. The element of free agents as economic atoms nullifies the deterministic solutions of formal science. So we reduce such theories to a dead letter on the spot. We can also profit from study of the critics and proponents of market socialism and its brouhaha over the so-called calculation debate. This debate was won then lost by the left but was then won again in various considerations of computational economics…A clear and effective strategy as to ‘market calculation’ is needed on the left. In the age of computers, AI, and increasing insight into economic action the solution is at hand in various experimental post-Keynesian/socialist strategies…Since the capitalists have no serious theory of economic systems we are under no obligation to submit to critiques of socialism based on the sophistries of the calculation debate.

3.4 DMNC: Demoractic Market Neo-communism
We begin to consider a practical version of a system that can mediate capitalism and communism, taken as ‘democratic market neo-communism’, a transitional system that can provide a resolution of the crisis point…We have a system that can mediate both markets and planned economies, next to a third autonomous sector with a degree of anarchist free for all. The combination of strong regulation, strong communist authority and a reflected set of opposites in balance, with an especial focus on the creation of a Commons of shared resources beyond capital as private property and an ecological legal system that can assist the passage beyond the crisis of climate…
3.5 Last and First Men
Man is proceeding as a species in transformation with the emergence of civilization seen as a new phase of human evolution. The almost inconceivable complexity of human evolution presents a challenge for a new civilization in the era of postcapitalism. Our challenge to darwinism was at least appropriate to the task of evading oversimplifications. Man is emerging from an embryonic phase of so-called civilization to a new form of society that can resolve both economy and democracy in social commune vested in the Commons…
Comment post
Having critiqued marxism I should also hasten to point out that marxists are one good set of candidates for a postcapitalist transition. But the frozen mindset needs to be broken. As we noted yesterday endless efforts to defend leninism are pointless. Consider that that was a failure and start over. That’s a big job. Start at once. We have provided one way to go.

Make the period of Marx/Engels in the 1840’s a foundational saga and reinvent the subject after that, our approach which bore fruit in Last and First Men. The tenets of marxism aren’t really necessary and very hard to defend anymore, next to the leninist confusions. If we give up and denounce leninism, we can turn around and possibly learn from it. But it arose in very special circumstances. We must be wary of succumbing to a totalitarian system even as we remain wary of any system that is too powerless to make a communist foundation.
Step one, stop using the terms ‘marxist/marxism’. The whole game needs a new title and has to stop being a cult of marx.
In the end marxist/communists (and most socialists) are the only resource we have for what could be a grisly process.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment