You can disagree with what I’m saying, but I think it gets us no where to keep harping on what Marx said – most of which was dense and frequently contradictory. He hit on some brilliant points in his critique of capitalism.

The idea of an egalitarian, communal society is one I think is worthy of working for. But Marx has no patent on that and frankly his works have been so frequently used to justify some of the worst examples of human invention that they’ve outlived their usefullness.

That Einstein saw merit in such an existence of egalitarianism is great. Einstein was of a time and place and such a position with regard to framing it as Marxist/Socialism made sense as an alternative to Capitalism. However the juice from that blueprint is dried up.

We can forge a sustainable existence without referencing Marx other than as a historical curiosity. That there are convergences, great…give him his due…but let’s move on.

The propaganda promoted by Max Shields is that Marxism is rigid or *gasp* ossified. Clearly there are and have been great thinkers in the Marxist tradition that has added to Marxist ideas.

Here is a some of the remarks about Marx’s Ecology…

“In Marx’s Ecology, John Bellamy Foster brilliantly expands our understanding of Marx’s thought, proving that Marx understood alienation to encompass human estrangement from the natural world. Foster criticizes the current version of environmentalism that equates Marxism and modernity with the degradation of nature and points towards a sophisticated and less nostalgic environmentalism which sees capitalism, not modernity, as the essential problem to be addressed.” — BARBARA EPSTEIN, University of California, Santa Cruz

More about the book…

Progress requires the conquest of nature. Or does it? This new account overturns conventional interpretations of Marx and in the process outlines a more rational approach to the current environmental crisis.

By reconstructing a materialist conception of nature and society, Marx’s Ecology challenges the spiritualism prevalent in the modern Green movement, pointing toward a method that offers more lasting and sustainable solutions to the ecological crisis.

It is a real shame that Max Shields “AGENDA” is to obscure the real
power that Socialism by disparaging the ideology as merely a flipside of Capitalism. There is a lot more to Socialism and Marxism in particular than portrayed by Max Shields. A good place to start is Monthly Review. Recall that in the very first issue of Monthly Review ALBERT EINSTEIN’S article “Why Socialism” was published.

Yes that right Albert Einstein was proudly part of the Socialist tradition and there are many others who clearly understand its importance.

Thanks for your responses to the various “responses”.

As far as post-modern (one way to put it) I don’t think we are in a post-modernist world. Real change, not simply the material change that emerges through technology, generally, doesn’t happen with a clean switch. What’s happening right this second is change we’ll only reflect on later.

The dominant narrative is clearly modernist/industrialist. Our schools and our culture as a whole is very much a continuation of post-WWII. But even what came out of WWII had its seeds in preceeding eras. As a metaphor: The interstate highway system did not happen before automobiles. But once that infrastructure was in place it took the auto to places and in ways never before considered.

If you want to catch a glimpse of change don’t look directly at what’s in front of you, but check it out peripherally. It’s happening, but it’s the wave behind what’s in front of your eyes.

So, yea, what’s clear is what has been there, more or less, over the past 60+ years, but there is a certain kind of change just over the horizon; and it is made possible through action, you are correct, but it doesn’t happen just by pounding away at what is and demanding it to change. Not all action is qualitatively equal.

1) Regarding the question of imperialism raised by Garrett, I would not deny that questions of foreign and domestic policy are intimately linked. And, yes, a strong progressive movement that is deeply entrenched in society should be addressing both aspects. In this scenario, such a movement might even be able to achieve substantial amounts. However, we are not in such a situation, unfortunately. Both in the UK and the US, the Left and left-wing ideas are marginalized and we are very much on the defensive; we need urgently to begin to rebuild. Focussing our energies on questions of imperialism (as the Left overwhelmingly does) in such circumstances does not seem a sensible strategy for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it does not address the immediate needs of ordinary people who we seek to reach and influence and work with, and so perpetuates the distance between the small numbers of dedicated activists and the rest of the population. This gulf needs to be bridged if the Left is to regain any influence. Our current strategies have gotten us nowehere (witness the combined economic and political crisis in the UK at present, and no significant of challenge from the Left whatsoever). The international movements feted by much of the Left – when in a defensive posture – have pursued strategies focussed on community organising and it is through such strategies that they have achieved levels of success.

2) Philosophically speaking, it’s correct to identify socialism as arising out of modernist thinking. But I can see scant evidence for the idea that we are in a “post-modern” world, as suggested Max Shields, unless we believe the inpenetrable ramblings of obscure French philosophes. His kind of human-centred approach that emphasises psychological change (if I read him correctly) is appealing to a degree but seems not to realise that if human psychology is shaped by our social setting, we are unable simply to change the former in the abstract. On the contrary, with changing our social setting – even through small acts such as taking industrial action, or engaging in cooperative community work – our psychology, the way we perceive what is commonsense, what is possible, and our approach to others, changes. I agree on the necessity of this, but it is through action not abstraction, that it can be achieved. And in my experience it does so remarkably quickly.

3) The odds for human survival may indeed be bleak, as Don Hawkins says. But I would argue it is sometimes foolish to put this at the top of our list of issues. To the extent that we believe we can create a better world, we need to reach people and to increase support for progressive ideas. I feel we need to articulate this in a positive way. If someone is holding down a couple of jobs, is in a community plagued by crime and does not have healthcare (only applicable in the US), or good community facilities for their children to use, is telling them “we’re all doomed” the best way to encourage them to become active in Left politics? Far better, I would suggest, to get them involved in campaigns around their low wages, or for healthcare or community facilities. If this was replicated by all Left activists, we could one day have a movement that is in a position to enact the kind of deep social change necessary to tackle climate change.

4) Regarding the Black Panthers, I would not endorse every aspect of their strategy and certainly it is not applicable in London today (or the US, probably). But some fundamentals are worth taking note of. The level of success the BPP achieved was largely due to its community organising, not its symbolism or black nationalism, something that can be readily replicated today shod of the less helpful parts of the Panthers’ programme and message.

Excellent article. I could not have said it better myself.

In my view one reason that the Left does not grow in this country is because the Left does not show enough concern for problems here in the US; and because the Left does not address the desire of people to be protected.

The Left cannot leave crime, national defense and immigration as issues that only the right wing addresses. The Left simply cannot say no defense spending, no police and open borders with amnesty for all. To critique amnesty; be in favor of a defense posture that makes sense, or the desire for safe streets does not make one a racist or a conseravtive.

One observation I have about the success of the Black Panther Party is that it did not tie itself to any of the major political parties.

I think it is a huge mistake for labor,civil rights groups, the Left and the peace movement to be tied to any political party. By remaining indepentent the above groups can focus on serving the needs of their core constituancies.

Eric

Lessons are always available but some lessons are not meant to be emulated. And when it is an attempt to “stand up” to the power structure, be assured the power structure is well of aware of that history and has adapted to those “lessons”.

I never thought of the Panthers as racist. They acknowledged systemic racism and saw that system as the primary problem, not simply white faces. Nevertheless, the racial legacy in the US is just too complex, ideosyncratic and therefore daunting to begin to deal it as a lesson.

I believe, however, that it needs to be decoupled from any emphasis on security and policing. For all the good they have done, the Black Panthers have been a militant, racist organisation, and not a model that I would be keen to see emulated in British communities when it comes to fighting crime (rather than the causes of crime). For all the problems that plague the British police force, it is, at least in principle, democratically accountable in a way that an organisation like the Black Panthers has never been. It is a fine line between “community policing” and vigilantism.

and gangs always first look after their interests. Presumably, in a land where one wld obtain healthcare, higher education, etc., degree of minority rule lessens.
and if news/views wld be controled also by the people and not solely by a gang of people, gang’s rule diminishes further.
talk about capitalism or any other ism leads only to rancour. Guaranteed!
and for the reason that isms are definable; a process that never ends; meaning of any ism being different for each individual.
even in canada, only a few of the bravest or most foolish wld mention socialism to another person or a crowd.
to many, the very word, it’s an evil word. And in US? Need is say?
but if one wld say, From each according to what he can do and to each according her needs, what wld most amers say?
i am told that amers say that it sounds good.
i say the hell with all dead ‘saviors’ such as jesus, marx, lenin, trotsky, roosevelt, ghandi, king, et al.
just give me health care and return to me my right to be informed/educated! bozhidar balkas tnx

In a “post-modern” world there is an emergence of uniting (re-uniting?) the human species to the forces of life. This not so much “new” but it is emerging as a compelling alternative, and hopefully one that becomes much more widely embraced as central to our organizing principles.

This does not mean that elements of “socialism/Marxism” or “Smith-styled capitalism” will disappear, but that the underlying thrust of their world view vis a vis the dominance and centrality of human existence supreme to that of all other life and life giving forces, will need to dissipate.

It may feel good to look fondly at a “socialism” of the 19th/20th Century as a real alternative to the corporate/global capitalism, but the truth is that socialism is as unsustainable, given what I’ve said above, as is the now collapsing American Empire’s version.

Re-branding (eco-capitalism or eco-socialism) will just simply not do.

What’s happening miles off the shores has a great (negative) impact on those cities and barrios. Imperialism (sometimes referred to as foreign policy) and domestic policy are linked.

Actually it is the other way around. The American people need to be convinced that what is happening at HOME influence what happens around the world. For example there will be no way the war on Palestine and Iraq and against the whole Muslim world is going to come to an end until Americans confront Zionism of which the Left isolates only to Israel and not to the homegrown variety that needs to be dealt with. Confront the Zionists in Washington and New York City and you’ll see a whole different policy towards Palestine.

and…

I think that if there is any lesson that you can draw from the history of our Black Panther Party that is that it is possible for you to usher in change as we did. You just have to be willing to get involved in issues in your community. (15:33)

Once again reinforcing the critique of the Left and especially “Chomskyism” which placed activist’s onus on “imperialism” and while ceding domestic issues to the Right-wing and especially religious group. The Left finds it more dire and pressing what’s happening miles of their shores than what’s happening in the cities and barrios in its own country where they can have the greatest impact.

And even when the Left does take up a domestic issue like National Health Care the extent of its demand tend to be narrow and weak rather than expansive, bold, and militant — for example demanding universal welfare and not settling for less.

Anyway yet another great article and analysis from Left Luggage.