History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: facing reality: marxism failed…we must reinvent a (communist) post-capitalist platform….should marxists dump Capital in the rubbish?

August 31st, 2017 · No Comments

The moment of truth is arriving while the world of the marxist dawdles in confusion and repetition of frozen memes. What was the problem? The left has done very little to analyze or discuss this. Usually someone on the left becomes disillusioned and simply decamps. But what is needed is for marxists to critically examine their corpus. If they can’t do that, and I fear they can’t, then we must start over with a new framework, but one that is nimble about dealing with classic legacies. We can’t really use stale marxism but we are out of time to change it.

We have suggested a set of ways to deal with that: our critique of historical materialism is a starting point, one that can refocus the whole subject but make use of much of the Marx/Engels corpus on such issues as class and ideology. Marxists have claimed that the epoch of communism will succeed that of capitalism, and then refused to define what communism is. The era of bolshevism exposed how dangerous that was as the system fell into the hands of stalin’s definitions.
The way out of this is to start over and consider simply the epoch of modernity (optional as any kind of theory) and the stream of economic situations. That stream shows the inheritance of ‘capitalism’ or a ‘proto’ version from antiquity, not its birth as a modern epoch succeeding feudalism and an especially strong amplification around the time of the industrial revolution in the eighteenth century. That was a key moment but it was not the birth of an epoch of capitalism replacing feudalism. The meme of feudalism suggests our larger framework is on the mark: the modern era did replace feudalism, but it did a lot of other things too. And a lot of those entities, from the reformation, scientific revolution, etc, were like relative starting points. The same can be said about so-called capitalism which was a set of innovations in finance, technology, and industrial production. This situation was ill-served by Adam Smith’s attempted synthesis, however cogent in many ways, and immediately the issue of socialism emerged to ask a question in various forms: how is the onset of a new form of production to be brought into a democratic context? This obvious enough but a close look shows that Marx/Engels produced an flawed analysis.
To cut to the chase, as it were, we have suggested, then, a view of the epoch of modernity in which its new forms of production are gestating alongside the issue of democratic politics and asking for a solution to the question of capital versus democracy/socialism. We have to specify in advance what that will be, but in fact this wasn’t done. We can see the crucial issue of what communism means was lost in abstraction, to be tackled only after the revolution, a fatal strategy. We should note that communist ideas were gestating all through the early modern in the onset of the new epoch and preceded the birth of modern capitalism as a set of policies. As noted ad infinitum, the cooptation by ‘bourgeois’ revolution prevented the correct analysis of the situation, rendered worse by the laissez faire idea nexus. Ideas moved into conjunction as opposites when a more nuanced analysis might have done better.
We are back to the point of our two manifestos: a chaotic mix of economic innovations emerge with the epoch of modernity and the struggle to unify democratic and so-called capitalism aborts and the response from the left is to create socialism. But the analysis never gets properly computed and the marxist juggernaut begins to overwhelm all analysis. We are still at that point today.
Our democratic market neo-communism is an attempt to insist on defining a communist system in advance to bring communism to liberalism and liberalism to communism. This way of thinking eschews deterministic analysis to focus on the action of free agents openly intent on creating a solution to the questions of democratic and economic/technological innovation in the context of the question of capital. It is not an insoluble problem. We have provided on solution. As we can see in retrospect the whole analysis on both sides was flawed and with bolshevism a great opportunity was lost.

Leftists are obsessed with Marx and his useless tome Capital. The latter makes a fine propaganda gesture but it is distracting in its failure to really analyze the problem and its fixation on an economics that is beside the point. The labor theory of value points to the key issue then fumbles the ball in confused analyses of value. And then the marginal revolution appeared and the confusions were compounded. The inadequacies of mathematical neo-classical economies should be a clear demonstration that nothing truly in the nature of ‘capitalism’ really exists for the simple reason that economists simply cannot define their subject. The object remains to tame the so-called capitalism in a system that can actually figure out laissez faire in the context of communism, techology, and financial instruments.

archive: R48G: a new kind of left…//Can Human Beings Survive The Impending Climate Crisis? | HuffPost
We have tried to pose a new kind of left, one that both affirms and negates classic marxism, moves beyond its frozen memes and considers a kind of neo-communism as a vehicle for responding to the crisis of capitalism as climate catastrophe: where the ‘end of history’ propaganda once seemed convincing it now looks ridiculous and we can see that capitalists are virtually incapable of responding to a global crisis: the verdict is, postcapitalism…

Source: Can Human Beings Survive The Impending Climate Crisis? | HuffPost

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment