RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
An Apology, Gaza, and Revisiting Marxism with Specific Invitations
Ep 345 of RevolutionZ begins with a brief apology for an error last episode. some self-reflection about RevolutionZ's duration of 345 consecutive episodes, some moving guest comments on Gaza plus my own comments on emerging Trumpian fascism. It then again addresses the question do activists need fresh conceptual frameworks that transcend traditional Marxism?
The episode revisits the critique of the Marxist tradition's adequacy for contemporary struggles/ We again and perhaps more succinctly and also aggressively argue that Marxism's core concepts systematically diminish attention to gender, race, and power relations while distorting economic understanding by defining classes solely through property relations.
The episode describes how these limitations have manifested in real-world movements to lead not to classlessness but to "coordinator class rule," dictatorships, and persistent though sometimes somewhat altered racism and sexism. The episode rejects Marxism's labor theory of value, denies the practical utility of dialectics, and considers why the tradition seems particularly vulnerable to sectarianism.
After then sharing a couple of personal anecdotes, the episode extends invitations to prominent Marxist intellectuals—from Kali Akuno, Tariq Ali, Ben Burgis, Vivek Chibber and Angela Davis, to Terry Eagleton, Max Elbaum, Bill Flether, Nancy Fraser and John Bellamy Foster, to David Harvey, Doug Henwood and Boris Kagarlitsky, to Robin Kelly, Vijay Prashad, Kshama Sawant and Rick Wolff—to address these concerns in the spirit of constructive dialogue. Hopefully one or more will respond. After all, why not?
This episode isn't bent on dismissing Marxism's contributions much less any Marxist activists, but on asking essential questions to propel a needed conversation: Does this intellectual tradition, as practiced by real-world actors who have been bent by existing oppressive structures, provide the comprehensive understanding needed for today's multi-faceted struggles? When should we enrich existing frameworks, and when must we entirely transcend them? Do you want to be called Marxist? If so, why? What conceptual tools will best serve our efforts to create a world beyond capitalism, sexism, racism, authoritarianism, and ecological collapse? Marxism's conceptual tools, or what?
Whether you're deeply versed in Marxist theory or approaching these matters for the first time, this episode urges that we together critically examine the intellectual foundations of our activism. What frameworks best position us to understand—and change—our rapidly transforming world?
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 345th consecutive episode. How about supporting Revolution Z a bit via our Patreon accounts Before we get into this episode? Last episode I included some song lyrics, as I do now and then, but I botched one. I attributed it to Jesse Wells instead of to the actual singer-songwriter, terrence Hegarty. Jeez, how the hell did I do that? My apologies to Terrence, to Jesse and to anyone who I misled. And to make up for my mess, here is Terrence's song, again attributed to him.
Speaker 1:This time the title is I Hate it here, but I Need the Money. It goes like this oh, marketing, it is my trade these days. You know it's global. I prostitute my talent to a product so ignoble. I rob the poor, I glut the rich, I keep the downward mobile. I hate it here, but I need the money. I never see the ugly things that are shipped out of Korea, but I inundate the planet with hard-hitting diarrhea and the VP makes me execute each stupid new idea. I hate it here, but I need the money. Oh God, whatever gods there are, forgive my sad complicity, but people everywhere arise, arise, pour out of sweatshops, homeless shelters, pigsties, computer banks, laboratories arise, annihilate the satellite infested skies. My brain feels like it's in a vice. The pressure's so emphatic. I squirm here at the mercy of a power mad fanatic. And this top toom structure is so anti-democratic. I hate it here but I need the money. Again, my apologies for misauthoring that excellent song. And now back to today.
Speaker 1:Comment 1 on Revolution C's duration 345th consecutive episode. Abc's duration 345th consecutive episode Posted every Sunday. That's a bit ridiculous. It means I have been doing Revolution Z every week, with no interruptions, for about six and a half years. But what is there to show for it? Honestly, I have no idea. I wish I knew. Maybe one or more of you can let me know. And actually, while I ponder that question about my own history, I wonder about the same question raised for other products and even for other media ventures, both on the left and otherwise. Perhaps the topic of media effectivity. What does it depend on and what constitutes it? Is a topic to take up in yet another episode. Comment two on Revolution Z's duration.
Speaker 1:We are still here, by which I don't mean Revolution Z itself, I mean the world still turns. I get up each day and I feel that I have to look around to be sure. What about you? Do you wonder a bit too? Even as I set aside for a moment occurrences in the US, how do I sensibly communicate with you, or with anyone at all, about Israel's genocidal violation of Gaza? I have a distant friend I have never met in person. He sends me and many, many others email a few times each week reporting on events in the Mideast. Perhaps Revolution Z's consistency is a little admirable, but Mazen Kumsaya's consistency in addressing the Israel-US genocidal assault on Gaza is incomprehensibly, incomparably, incredibly admirable. I just got another message from him and I am moved to include it here, even as my topic this time is entirely different. His message goes like this the extermination and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip is reaching unprecedented cruelty, and the US government is sending another 517 million dollars worth of bombs to the Israeli regime to continue it.
Speaker 1:On Monday, june 30th, israeli forces bombed the only still-functioning cafe in the Gaza Strip. Surviving intellectuals, journalists, academics frequented it to escape the relentless genocide. 32 were killed there instantly and dozens were injured, many critically, and the lack of medical facilities means death or disability. An image of a stunned, injured elderly man next to the body of his wife among the devastation haunts me. Then we heard today that the Israeli regime assassinated Dr Marwan al-Sultan, a cardiologist and director of an Indonesian hospital, the only barely functioning hospital in Gaza City. The Israeli army knows his home perfectly well and sent him a missile, killing him and his wife and their five children.
Speaker 1:Mazen continues. Mazen continues. Mosab Abu Toha wrote. Quote In the past three hours, israel has savagely attacked over four school shelters in northern Gaza, resulting in a large number of casualties. As of this writing, hundreds of families are sitting or sleeping in the streets after fleeing the bombed shelters. The schools that were bombed are, and then they're listed. I can't really pronounce them. Omar wrote from Gaza, where he is trying to care for a group of 22 people to survive, and his message continued quote perhaps tonight is the last night I will write to you. I hope it isn't the last, or maybe it's better if I don't hope at all.
Speaker 1:This soul is weary. It craves peace. The tanks are near. Their roar sits heavy in my lap, rattling this exhausted body. Gunfire crackles without end everywhere. The grinding of treads devours what little memory remains. I hear it so clearly, crushing my dreams, my dreams. What a hollow word. I don't even know how it slipped through my fingers. A burst of bullets first, second, third. Dear God, what is this madness? My hand trembles again as Ahmed, my nephew, crouches like a hunted thing, clinging to his grandmother. Fear gnaws at him, crouching over his small body like a predator savoring its prey. Children are easy meat for terror. The tanks roll closer, the wail of ambulances swells and I wonder, will another image emerge A man burning, his body torn open, while the world feasts on his agony, only to forget him in two days? Has our suffering become a stepping stone for others' success? I don't know if morning will come, not tomorrow's dawn, but the dawn of the sky, when my soul rises to a place wrapped in peace, where love flocks like doves, a place untouched by this screaming violence.
Speaker 1:A day later, mazin reports his witness Tahara wrote to him again. The price of sugar in Gaza is extremely high and the Americans involved in the American aid know this very well. What happened today is one of the worst crimes ever committed. Know this very well. What happened today is one of the worst crimes ever committed. Read carefully what I'm about to say. As soon as the first wave of American aid arrives, people rush to get sugar first. Today.
Speaker 1:The Americans deliberately placed the sugar in a separate area. Then they dug a deep pit just before the sugar zone, covered it with nylon and lightly sprinkled it with dirt so that no one would see it or notice. The starving reached the sugar first and seven people fell into the pit. Then a bulldozer came and buried them alive. Meanwhile, a man in his fifties was returning from the aid area, nearly collapsing. I held him and he said to me I'd rather die of hunger than go back to that aid. It's aid of death.
Speaker 1:I am tempted to stop this episode right there, after conveying that message from my friend and his friend. Do you not believe the report? I don't want to believe it either, but I do. War is good for nothing, but this unfolding horrific nightmare isn't even war. It is massacre on display. Intentionally shooting children and starving a whole population is god-awful To be ordered to do such things and to then do them. It is worse than horrible. As to believing it, do you live in the USA? Netanyahu and Israel learned from us.
Speaker 1:Consider Trump's most recent step to cement his tyrannical fascism in place his big murderous bill with its oft-described components that gut health, impose hunger and ramp up coercive resources. Or consider Trump's concentration camps, starting with Alligator Alcatraz. Will he soon offer alligator shirts for sale? Perhaps pet alligators too? Alligators are us. Alligator Alcatraz continues the mind-boggling sequence of Trump's fascist choices. It displays both Republicans' abject cowardice and self-serving submission and most Democrats' unwillingness to aggressively resist.
Speaker 1:Media will call the concentration camp an immigrant internment center, or perhaps a rest stop or a holding center or something, but it is in fact a concentration camp, and Trump says he wants more such camps. He wants them all over the country, from sea to shining sea, and indeed his recent disgusting bill provides massive funding to construct new camps all over the country and massive funding to finance a domestic army to wind up people to inhabit the camps. This is how Dachau and Auschwitz began. Build them, fill them. Trump says. I just need some more jail space. Let me budget that. I'll use it for convicted criminals of the most anti-social sort, of course, though not myself and my cult of psychophants. Course, though not myself and my cult of psychophants, also called the Republican Party. But hold on, perhaps I can also use it for that alien maniac, mamdani.
Speaker 1:Alligator Alcatraz is to terrorize the public. It is to incarcerate anyone Trump finds annoying. I bet you thought I was exaggerating above mentioning Mamdani. But no, the first notable canate mentioned for alligator Alcatraz is indeed Mamdani. Strip his sentient ship urges Trump. Ship him to our spanking new Everglades facility. Surround him with alligators. No need for big walls and lots of guards, alligators are better.
Speaker 1:So can we all see that the pot is boiling? The stew is a mix of hypocrisy, cowardice and narcissistic megalomania. The outcome, speeding from the pot toward us all, is entrenched fascism. Can we see it? Can we understand the need to fight it? Netanyahu has learned from the US everything that can shoot on anything that moves. Plus starve the population, demolish the target schools, incinerate the target's homes, blow off the heads of the target's children, starve the population, make rubbish of health care, dictate knowledge, escalate arms. What next? We organize? To stop it all? To reverse it all, of course. And in that light, it's time again to get back to this episode's agenda. To stop Israel, to stop Trump to speak, write, cogitate, organize and collectively act to stop fascism and to then persevere until we implement new relations for a new world is the agenda that history now demands of us if history's arc is to continue forward.
Speaker 1:But how should we think about what is going on to make sense of it. How should we think about it, to decide what to do about it? This is where what is sometimes called theory or ideology, or a bag of useful, shared, continually updated concepts comes in. We don't want to start over from scratch every month, week or day. We want to accumulate and retain insights. We want to come at the world with a lasting framework of concepts and a rich understanding of their interrelations that speedily focuses us on what's important and that efficiently helps us to determine what we want to do and how to do it. And there are indeed a number of such frameworks to choose from Liberalism, feminism, anarchism, intercommunalism, environmentalism and more. And indeed there is one that is very developed. It offers lots of concepts, it offers whole libraries of associated commentary. It even offers historical implementation.
Speaker 1:It is called Marxism, or sometimes Marxism-Leninism, and its advocates say it can greatly inform us, guide us, shield us from errors and provide us essential wisdom about what to do. So an advocate of that tradition might say to us here is a book or even here is a lengthy reading list Imbibe the substance, learn the lingo, join the tradition. The references will help you understand and also change your current situation. So should we act on that advice. Can the Marxist tradition usefully help us understand the world to change it? Can the Marxist tradition usefully help us understand the world to change it? Would to immerse ourselves in the Marxist tradition help or hinder our activism?
Speaker 1:In early June I did a prior Revolution Z episode and I also had an article on Znet, and both the episode and the article considered whether we should immerse ourselves in the Marxist tradition to help us deal with today's crises and possibilities. I said no. I said the tradition's core concepts diminish gender, race and power, attentiveness, subtlety and scope. The tradition's core concepts distort, diminish and even severely damage economic understanding by asserting that classes arise only from property relations. I even had the audacity to dismiss dialectics, reject the labor theory of value and assert that historical materialism has some useful insights but on balance, does harm. Finally, I savaged the tradition's oppressive economic vision and criticized its inattentiveness to social vision.
Speaker 1:With all that on the table, I thought surely some of Marxism's best-informed advocates would forcefully reject my case. So far that hasn't happened. And indeed for Marxism's advocates to ignore my concerns and claims would be appropriate if my criticisms are so ignorantly deluded that they do not require agreement or disagreement but instead demand only dismissive silence. If there is no there there, there is nothing to take seriously. Another possibility is to think that immersing or not immersing will have no current practical effects. What people do and their political trajectory won't differ either way.
Speaker 1:But so far I am unconvinced that either of those explanations explains the silence. I doubt that in the article or episode I so missed, the point was so misled by some superficial confusion or was even just a foolish old man spouting nonsense so that to reply would be superfluous. I also doubt that Marxists who urge people who are moving to activism to join the Marxist tradition think that to do so will have no implications. Instead, I think the arguments I offered were certainly highly controversial but also, if valid, highly consequential. The presentation was, I think, relatively calm and non-sectarian, and I think to journey into the Marxist tradition greatly affects one's subsequent choices and commitments.
Speaker 1:But if I am wrong and the claims weren't sensibly reasoned or it's a choice without consequences, then it should be quite easy for Marxists to demonstrate my criticism's ignorance and or illogic. But so far no one has sought to do so. Maybe it is just that there hasn't been enough time and the reaction is coming. After all, marxists, much less Leninists and Trotskyists who I refer to by quoting Lenin and Trotsky, enacting the flaws I rejected are typically quick to call out and even to trounce what they consider unwarranted criticisms of Marxism. So why not rebut my heretical claims?
Speaker 1:The need to have a shared conceptual toolbox to inform our efforts grows daily. I think entreaties to immerse ourselves in the Marxist tradition will grow as well. So let's revisit the reason why this whole area of focus is worth pursuing at all at such a chaotic, crisis-ridden time as now. Then let's briefly review the criticisms offered earlier to try and make them a sufficiently sharp target for disagreement. Along the way, let's also provide an anecdotal story or two for a little entertainment and perhaps some further potential for debate. Finally, to round out this episode, let's try to get seriously specific with some direct invitations to actual, real-world, living, highly known and very capable Marxists to address the issues.
Speaker 1:The question of whether to immerse in Marxism or not is important even at this crisis moment, because to possess collectively shared worthy concepts will help us understand our circumstances flexibly conceive goals and develop organization and strategy to help us arrive where we would like our efforts to take us. Collective unity matters. If we lack shared ideas, concepts, relationships, we will have a hard time moving in the same direction as one another have a hard time moving in the same direction as one another. The criticisms I have offered were put starkly and succinctly. One, that the Marxist tradition, and particularly the concepts of historical materialism as advocated and utilized by real-world actors who have been molded by the oppressive structures of current society, can provide us some desirable insights but also, regrettably, tend to push us toward an economism that counterproductively diminishes and distorts attention to critically important extra-economic race, gender, sexual and power relations.
Speaker 1:Two despite providing brilliant insights about the ills of private ownership of the means of production and also some of the dynamics of workplaces, the Marxist tradition defines and deploys class analysis in a manner that intellectually and historically constricts our understanding Even of what centrally important classes exist, much less of the broad consciousnesses they will tend to often have, the material and social interests they will pursue and even their potential to rule in different types of economy, right up to the Marxist tradition repeatedly advocating and indeed establishing and enforcing institutions that don't eliminate class hierarchy but that instead generate class division and class rule, not by owners, whom Marxism rightly seeks to unseat, but by empowered employees, who I call the coordinator class. Indeed, the tradition does this so forcefully that it is even reasonable to assert, ironically and controversially, but in a manner that I think Marx would actually recommend, that Marxism in practice tends to become Marxism-Leninism, which, in one of history's most ironic and harmful twists, becomes not an ideology of the working class or of classlessness, as it proclaims, but an ideology of the coordinator class, as it proclaims, but an ideology of the coordinator class. 3. That, while the Marxist labor theory of value identifies some rather obvious but insightful truths, it then goes way too far or, I guess, more accurately, it goes not far enough and as a result, it mistakes and directs its advocates away from what actually determines wages, prices and profits and away from much else about production and consumption that is critical to understand to overcome oppressive economic conditions. It tends to lead to acceptance of either markets or central planning, or a combination of the two, for allocation, and to implementing a corporate division of labor for job definition, each of which choices subverts desires for equity, justice and classlessness. Four, that Marxism's calls to become adept at dialectics and to immerse in the associated literature offers little to nothing of value, much less anything essential to those who seek to win a new, worthy and viable world beyond capitalism, sexism, racism, authoritarianism, war and ecological suicide and instead actually intimidates and disempowers potential activists. Finally, while the earlier essay didn't explicitly address it, I now add that, just as I think the tradition's concepts as used by real-world actors in real-world struggles tend over and over to lead to distorted attention to extra-economic matters and to coordinators ruling over workers, induce or at the very least don't sufficiently prevent, a repeatedly seen slip-slide to an incredibly aloof divorce from evidence and drift into sectarian defensiveness and sometimes even mutual annihilation, marxism doesn't prevent and even seems to induce sectarianism.
Speaker 1:Here are a couple of related anecdotes. After Robin Hanel and I published the book On Orthodox Marxism, there were two reactions that I think can provide some anecdotal benefit here. This was in 1978. The book had quite a broad focus, but it started by presenting what we call the basics of Orthodox Marxism as a theory of History and Economy as positively as we could. We hoped that that would make clear what it was we were challenging and I guess also that we knew its features well and accurately. In the book there followed a critique of this orthodox Marxism and also an attempt to refine it. Interestingly, after a time we heard that some faculty were using the part that presented the framework in their courses to well present the framework. We took that to mean the presentation was fair and on point. These faculty then, however, did not assign the subsequent critique or the extensions. So we apparently did a good job describing what they advocated and wanted to teach, and then they did an impressive job of avoiding any need to counter our criticisms by simply ignoring them.
Speaker 1:Another anecdote arising from the book's publication was that, surprisingly quickly upon its release, robin and I got an email from Ronald Meek. Meek was then one of the world's foremost Marxist economists, and he was particularly noted for his presentations of and his support for the labor theory of value. He wrote to us that he not only liked the book but also agreed with it and would soon write a review saying so. Robin and I were honestly a bit shocked, but also quite excited, because we thought, probably rightly, that Meek's doing that would cause the issues to become very seriously and widely addressed. The conversation we sought to elicit would occur. Sad to say, meek literally died that same year before he pursued the matter, at least publicly, any further. Okay, so much for anecdotes.
Speaker 1:We have now reached the invitation stage of this episode. But what does that even mean. Well, I want to invite for a cordial, civil, uncompromising, and also quote let's get to the heart of it discussion, a number of Marxism's current advocates, in hopes that one or more will have some time to give to the concerns. So far it is distinctly possible. In fact, I suspect it's very likely, that none of the people I will hear invite have even seen, much less read, the earlier article titled Should Our Resistance Enhance or Transcend Marxism, or heard the subsequent podcast episode titled Marxism and Us or Not, both of which are easily accessible from Zenon. And while I hope those I will now specifically invite will look at one or the other of those efforts and will choose to write a piece that either delineates debates, debunks or even demolishes the case I offered or, for that matter, if anyone prefers, that they will get in touch with me at sysop, at zmagorg, to arrange to be on Revolution Z to pursue the issues, to arrange to be on Revolution Z to pursue the issues, or, if anyone prefers, that they will have me as a guest on some venue they host or they like to do the same thing. I should acknowledge that I am not so delusional as to think that the folks I hope to engage with in any context that they might like, are likely to even hear this episode. You might then reasonably wonder what's my point here in extending the invitations. Well, on the one hand, the invited Marxists might not hear this directly, but they might hear about it. If some of you who have listened decide to write to one or more of them about the invitation and about the article and the now two episodes to urge them to take up the issues, for that matter, maybe one or more of you who are listening will take up the issues yourselves, perhaps with comments appended to this episode, or with queries, comments or corrections offered in Znet's Discord channel, which can also be reached via znetworkorg.
Speaker 1:So, with all that preamble, who from the Marxist tradition would I love to engage with? Well, how about Kali Akuno, a founder of Cooperation Jackson and an extraordinary organizer who has been a guest on Revolution Z in the past? Or how about and you can no doubt already discern that I am listing these alphabetically Ben Burgess? Ben taught in the online school I hosted some years back, so again, there is some connection and Ben is certainly a serious and very capable advocate of Marxism. And next, how about Vivek Chhibber? My memory is, let's call it not impressive, but I don't think he and I have had much or perhaps even any contact. But he, like Burgess, is certainly a serious, careful and frequent advocate of Marxism and, perhaps still more relevantly, he has already been quite involved in discussions that bear on some of the issues arising from what I called economism that I and many others have raised.
Speaker 1:Or how about Angela Davis or Tarika Lee? I am not sure how much Davis's Marxist background, roots and studies play a role in her more recent work, but she might be another accomplished advocate for views that I urge us to augment, enrich and also, in many core cases, transcend. That I urge us to augment, enrich and also, in many core cases, transcend. And likewise for Tariq Ali, with whom I have had some very modest interaction. He is, of course, not only a partisan of the tradition that I am urging activists to transcend, but he is also, like me, long entrenched in alternative media and thus public advocacy of, and sometimes critique of, diverse intellectual approaches.
Speaker 1:Terry Eagleton would be another great and eloquent partner for such an exploration, though I don't think I have met him. Or how about Max Elbaum and Bill Fletcher? They have each been on Revolution Z and would each be excellent contributors to a discussion of Marxism, the Marxist tradition and whether to enrich it or transcend it. John Bellamy Foster of Monthly Review would be another excellent contributor. Monthly Review, after all, is one of the foremost Marxist media operations in the world, along with Verso and New Left Review, and we could engage there or via podcasting or wherever.
Speaker 1:How about Nancy Fraser, who I would say is already an enricher of the tradition and with whom I think I would probably have quite a few views in common but also some differences to explore? Or how about David Harvey or Doug Henwood, both accomplished Marxist economists, neither of whom I know but one or both of whom might be interested? Or how about Boris Kagarlitsky, who I do know somewhat and who might be interested as well? Then there are Robin Kelly, vijay Prashad and Kshama Sawant, who are activists and intellectual practitioners of the highest order and of great energy, and who might wish to rebut my charge as a useful way to advocate for the Marxist tradition. Then what about Bhaskar Sankara of Jokoman? And then the Nation, also a prominent Marxist of great repute. And then, to finish with the names of even my teas, though of course the list could go on.
Speaker 1:There is also alphabetically presented here last, but arguably the dean and most visible of the current Marxist traditions advocates Rick Wolf. I was actually in a class that Rick taught on Marxism at UMass Amherst a long long time ago. I think he likely remembers, as we clash fairly often about various aspects of his course. Perhaps Rick could have me on his podcast, or I would welcome him on Revolution Z if he prefers, or he could address my concerns, widely felt by many others as well, in an essay, as could anyone mentioned earlier, as that would also be more than welcome and perhaps more appropriate for such a broad topic. And perhaps more appropriate for such a broad topic.
Speaker 1:I should say that I get that the people just mentioned are all busy doing extremely important things but, though perhaps unrealistically, I nevertheless hope a few or even just one of them will think the broad question of whether activists should immerse in the Marxist tradition or should enrich it or should fully transcend it, is important enough and also timely enough for them to address the recently re-raised and indeed often raised issues, even amidst our many other current priorities. I said re-raised so I should perhaps say that the first time I took up such issues was in a 1974 book that I did, titled what is to be Undone, which was even longer ago than that course that I took with Rick Wolfe at UMass Amherst. The title reveals that my desire to transcend the framework held sway then. The second really substantial time I pursued these issues was a 1978 book that Robin Hanell and I did, titled Unorthodox Marxism mentioned in the earlier Offred anecdote in which we were trying to enrich but also remain within the tradition, and there have been many times since when I have revisited these issues, especially the criticisms of Marxist class concepts and the rest as well. So what would I like to hear from anyone who thinks that to address the concerns that I and I believe, many others have with the tradition is warranted? Well, to summarize First, I would like to know why Marxism's advocates feel that, when used by real people, in actual contemporary societies, and particularly in the US, historical materialism doesn't tend to lead to what becomes a harmful overemphasis on economy and doesn't cause a still more damaging neglect and especially distortion and narrowing of attention to gender, kinship, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, power and polity.
Speaker 1:If it does those things, we would need to at least fix it or perhaps move beyond it, wouldn't we? Similarly, second, I would like to know why Marxism's advocates feel that to deny that class rule over working people can arise from economy's division of labor and or from its means of allocation, as compared to only from its ownership relations, doesn't severely cripple Marxism's class analysis. Why doesn't ignoring and even denying the existence of a class between labor and capital in capitalism and that rules over labor in the economies that Marxists have established when they have successfully overthrown capitalism constitute let's call it an impeachable offense by the tradition? And if it does, wouldn't we need to at least fix it, or perhaps move beyond it, for that matter? Third, I wonder why Marxism's advocates think the labor theory of value provides useful concepts and orientation for understanding wages, prices and profits and for getting a full grip on workplace issues, for example on how decisions are made and how workers react toward calls to change society. And if it doesn't, wouldn't we need to at least fix it, or perhaps move beyond it? And fourth, what do Marxism's advocates even mean when they urge us to use dialectics? And in particular, what, if anything, do they think that learning that lingo will help activists understand? Do, envision and enact that we can't more quickly and easily understand, do envision and enact without utilizing dialectics? If nothing, then why bother? And perhaps least tractable but equally important.
Speaker 1:Fifth, why don't Marxism's advocates think that Marxist tradition has inadequate concepts or advisories to ward off sectarianism? And if it is inadequate in that way, wouldn't we need to at least fix it or perhaps move beyond it? Basically, why do those who urge that activists immerse in the Marxist tradition, or who don't urge or actually find ignorant or counterproductive my entreaties to transcend the horrible faults of that tradition, think that the Marxist tradition provides sufficient, otherwise unavailable wisdom and aims that should cause us to identify with it and even immerse in it, despite the horrendous and, I would say, predictable historical record of its implications for real-world practice? Historical record of its implications for real-world practice. Put another way, what that is helpful will to immerse in the tradition, provide activists. That outweighs what is lacking and even negative. And that said, this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.