History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: the hidden promotion of market capitalism by marxists…

August 1st, 2017 · No Comments

The question of economic theory (and inside that the debate over economic calculation) is a notably useless one: it is possible to nullify the whole field with an easy critique of neo-classical economics (a cinch) and a determination to review the arcana of the so-called ‘calculation problem’ with a sense that the issue of planning was the object of market ideology in overdrive.

The whole field could have been a complete victory for the left, but because of the rfixation on marx’s out of date views the left missed the boat and continued to peddle views that have been questioned for over a century. It is hard to think of a subject more vulnerable that neo-classical economics but because its veneer of science has duped virtually the whole profession the left has been hesistant to move beyond the realm of marxist apologetics…

Capitalism instead has been elevated to a stage of history, which is misleading: there is a stage of histtory, the modern epoch, and there an economic system that deals with markets and socialism in one swoop has yet to be devised.
The marxist left has ended up validating capitalism and all its confusions, crimes and outright failures as an inevitable phase and this has delayed really dealing with it…Capitalism isn’t a stage of history at all and there is no necessity to its logic. The question of markets is mostly mystification, and their modulation should be constant at all points.

archive: Red Fortyeight Group materials into public domain…

January 30th, 2016 ·

The economic calculation problem is a good example of the way that ideology has paralyzed leftist thinking and it is proving pernicious indeed. Problems we should have solved a generation age are still being dominated by obsessive libertarian reactionaries. Paper airplane…done.
The purpose of Last and First Men is to create a stylized neo-post-marxist package that invokes a larger modernity as the field of realization. The canon of straight marxism is too dogmatic, dated and despised at this point. Time for a re-issue…

We don’t have to reject the classic discussions of the calculation debate, but we have no grounds for scientific certainty, and, more, we cannot let such discussions blind us to the failure of capitalism. And its failure has been become a slow motion catastrophe. It is false to be held up by Mises-type idiots preaching the failure of socialism, worse, its impossibility, when we confront the worse failure of capitalism. Neither one is ‘impossible’, in the Mises lingo, but capitalism threatens the whole of human life. And capitalism is becoming extravagant: the TPP wishes to make governments liable for future expected profits. That’s a symptom of too much power, egad…
We need to start NOW with something more than words and slogans: a path beyond capitalism is indicated by the facts. We can create a hybrid/transitional/revolutionary combination of approaches, but in the end we can’t be timid about the ‘revolution’ in the making. We don’t have to make a final commit to start. We have a situation that reminds of the period from 1890 to 1914/7: we have to reproduce the equivalent of ‘marxism’ at a higher level, critiqued, rewritten, and up to date (the questions of neo-classical economics, e.g.), with a movement, which can be Menshevik/Bolshevik: evolutionary/revolutionary at the same time. it needs to deal with culture, religions (e.g.xtianity, buddhism), 9/11, science/scientism, darwinism/social darwinism, the context of modernity, the nature of a postcapitalist economy/society, etc…The framework of marxism has fallen into crud and is unusable. But the basic core is still OK. Its general outline works still, but its theories are dated. Its materialism is dated, its dialectic is dated, it economics is dated. But the basic prophecy of a postcapitalist transition/revolution remains the key to our catastrophe in the making. It is important to differ from these ancestors by projecting specifics at this point. We must offer a program, a method to create communism, with democracy, in an economic context that is moving toward globalization. This is impossible, not least because we have declared it so, and lost a generation, two, to the incoherent projects of one issue activism.

It is interesting to watch the Sanders group: out of nowhere a movement appears. But it has flaws: it can’t deal with Israel, with 9/11, and it can’t really even deal with socialism. But it shows how fast a new movement can appear.
I remain suspicious, but keen to watch what is happening. The symmetry of Trump and Sanders worries me. There is something going on we don’t see, maybe. Paranoia?

But we need some new foundations. You have to invoke the past to maintain a certain consistency, direction. But the whole marxist canon repels almost everyone. The mountain of cliches in motion on both sides is monumental.
We need a simple ‘net equivalent’ of this/that, from ideology and critique, to class struggle and class warfare, and the basics of economic critique, a definition of communism, and its global completion, etc…
WE have outlined all this a dozen times here. But any movement will be rapidly smothered by marxists. The reverse is also going to be the case: OWS type confusion will chase itself in circles. We must welcome both to our Red Fortyeight Group. The both have components of an answer.
We have done a lot here in many directions: we have produced a new xtianity for the left: the Munzerian Church of communism, a post-buddhist dharmic religious nexus, with a debriefing of Indian religion, and expose of the hidden sufi mafia in Islam and the hidden spiritual technology of soul….Our chinese comrades will produce a Chinese legacy for Taoism/confucianism here, etc…
We can make the focus of a new movement the larger spectrum of modernity itself: science, religion/reformation, emergent liberalism/socialism, revolutionary histories (German Peasant War to English Civil War, to French Rev to 1848, 1917), economics, Smith/Marx, philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer), materialism, idealism, romanticism, modern literature, etc,…The context of historical materialism can be simply opened outward into an economic critique of culture and capitalism without the theoretical cement block.
Modern secularism has to be an update of religious consciousness in broad outlines: the society of individuals with autonomy, with wills and souls, ethical imperatives, critiques of metaphysics, and ethical socialists working toward a republic of ends. We don’t have to enforce atheism and materialism on a billion people to proceed.
Take anything you need from these archives for a new Red Fortyeight Group: a radical/revolutionary/evolutionary assembly wise to its own Menshevik/Bolshevik faultline but assembled as a party of a coat of many colors. This group can talk with the religious legacies even as it moves in a new direction, and will try to create communes on the way to communisms, and will have a rich party culture that can generate a populist spectrum.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment