Marxisms and Neo-Marxisms

Post Reply New Topic

I have significantly revised the Marxisms and Neo-Marxisms page which I show to my students. Comments are welcome:

http://markfoster.org/marxisms.html

Marx was a reluctant revolutionary, he was a revolutionary only on paper. He was approached by his fans to kick-start the revolution he said it wasn't the optimal time.

Marx and Engels had their own views on revolution. While, in the UK, they focused on union organizing.

They were also impossibilists. They believed that revolutions needed to emerge out of the contradictions of capitalism, not be fermented artificially.

I'm not a Marxist by any stretch. My POV is there is an important distinction to be made between Competition and Capitalism, and one doesn't necessarily follow the other we have been to focused too much on the former and not the latter. I'm a Competitionist, but not an advocate of anti-trust (which is retrospective, selective and minimal) but rather not encouraging these protectionist markets in the first place.

Mussolini could only dream of the level of collusion we have fostered.

I also a critic of the so called "abstract" properties and rights, which are in fact mostly protectionism and collusion disguised, and not rights or property at all. These people don't like to see it that way, but are quite happy to use those terms on others when it suits.

I'm a social Libertarian based on the Harm principle.

I'm not really sure what qualifies for your list but didn't see much on Internationalism or Regionalism. These are positions in socialist circles, and arguably Marxism. Well there were some references global socialism and "capitalist world system".

To me the problem is that collusion is international problem, in multinationals can play countries off each other for better protectionism, and perks. To me the solution is nurturing true competition, for you the solution I'm guessing is Marxism.

The problem I see with Marxism, it is mirrors the same solution of jobs through limited competition that much of capitalism does, just the employer is different. This leads to economies that are more prone to collapse in a catastrophic manner impacting more ordinary people.

There is no such thing as naturalistic economics or self-righting economics, however competition offers more insulation through choice and therefore the the fallout is less virulent.

I don't think that all globalism is bad, but the type based on collusion obviously is. I guess that is a semantic discussion.

My own approach to Marxism is based upon the late British philosopher Roy Bhaskar's philosophies of critical realism and metaReality. In his view, emancipation needs to begin with the individual - become liberated from demireality (disunity) into copresence (unity). Gradually, that copresence can be expanded into a socialist society.

Bhaskar was not a materialist. His philosophy of metaReality was inspired by the Hindu nondualist philosopher Shankara's philosophy. To Bhaskar, both the material and spiritual conditions are real. IMO, Bhaskar completed the dialectic.

Bhaskar's philosophy of metaReality was secular, not religious. His view was that an individual's any emancipatory project (fighting racism, sexism, Islamophobia, homophobia, ableism/disablism, capitalism, etc.) would lead to personal liberation (copresence). Although he, personally, experienced emancipation through meditation, he did not advocate it.

Interesting. Does your trade union believe in Jewish conspiracies?

I enjoy Wallerstein's work a lot. I tend to read a few chapters at random in one of his books, they are way too dense to take in all at once. (Or should that be I'm way too dense haha)

Back, wizard! Your words of power hold no sway over me!