Marx completely confused the issue of socialism: the idea that attempts to construct socialism were utopian, while his system was scientific was misguided from the start. His system wasn’t scientific at all, and was a misreading of both history and economics.
The issue then is a constructivist recipe to create a postcapitalist society. It should not be ‘utopian’, but practical, realizable and not cluttered with useless efforts to produce a theory of history….
We are pretty hard on marxism, but nota bene we ply a strange variant of that classic subject, hoping against hope that a source of great advance in the midst of theoretical flaws can find in a new generation a critique and upgrade of what is now somewhat dated thinking.
The issue finally is that we can be communists without being marxists. It seems that in any case marxism is confusing the left now. I have never met anyone who understood Marx, perhaps including myself, and even David Harvey. Marx created a theological discourse out of ‘marxism’ (he says he wasn’t a marxist) and its followers have therefore ceased to think. His Manifesto is all that we have left.
In a field of criticisms, we have made one suggestion: construct a model of a communist post-capitalism, and lay it out before the public, to see if it is viable. Our Democratic Market Neo-communism attempts to do just that and can help to see the disastrous way marxists started chanting the ‘communism mantra’ without specifying what that might be, yet prophesying its future in a void. The result was a disaster and I don’t think ‘marxists’ so-called will get another chance. A new generation must resume from the fragments left as marxist rubble the analysis of a viable economic, political and ecological social transformation, evolutionary or revolutionary at a time of planetary crisis, which sees marxists mostly twiddling their thumbs…
Marxists seem to think they are smarter than everyone else, in part because of the strange arrogance of their own scientism and one trick pony of economic historicism. The addition of a confused version of Hegel’s no doubt confused dialectic, in turn from Kant’s ‘Dialectic’ (the probably correct dyadic logic usage, as ‘debate’) in his CPR has not helped: the left has a slew of ‘genius’ books in this vein, and they are all flawed. This ‘classic’, the source of considerable muddle over the ‘Enlightenment’ by many readers misled here, using the trashy degenerate brand of ‘dialectic’ hashed out by Marx, requires, to be sure, careful study, but without the now dated fetishizing of the Frankfurt School. As we have seen in the previous post the issue of the Enlightenment is getting misjudged and blamed for things it is not responsible for. The question of fascism deserves many angles, but the Enlightenment is getting a bum rap. With the Enlightenment ‘Reason’ waves a little flag as noted in previous post.
Hegel seems to have sensed, if not understood, our critique of dyadic versus triadic dialectic. What marxists mean by the term is beyond me, and leaves me with little confidence in a marxist dialectic of enlightenment….You can however usefully spar with this book, as its mystique wears off…
Source: Dialectic of Enlightenment – Wikipedia
The study of the Enlightenment in isolation can only produce confusion. One can only recommend a study of the eonic effect: there the issue is the ‘modern transition’ which is a massive complex of opposites in tandem: the Enlightenment trumpets ‘reason’ in concert with a host of related effects. Continue reading the mistake of taking the ‘enlightenment’ in isolation…//Why the Enlightenment was not the age of reason | Aeon Ideas
Modernity, revolution and postcapitalism… June 28th, 2018 • Our discussions today reinvoke our discussions of modernity and revolution with a focus on the possibility of postcapitalism.
Source: Modernity, revolution and postcapitalism… –