ALL CAPITALISM OFFERS US IS SCORCHING SUMMERS OR NUCLEAR WINTERS.
July 3, 2025 7 Comments
Due to problems linking to the article mentioned on page 7 I have downloaded the full article below. It is certainly worth reading for its comprehensive overview.
THEPLANNINGMOTIVE.COM 
Unfortunately the link on page 7 to the article reviewing “Marx’s elaboration of consciousness” is broken (the link is to a local file on your PC). I mention this because I would like to look at it.
I will set it up as a separate link as a paragraph alongside the post tomorrow
I have now attached the article linked on page 7 below the main article. Let me have your comments.
It’s been a while since I’ve thought about this stuff, so my comment can only be short and glib. There is no doubt about the superiority and closeness to the perspective of Marx (young and old) of the dialectical conception of history, society, and the relationship to mind and matter, over the vulgar materialism of the 2nd International/Stalinist school. However, this brief article goes too far by celebrating the genuinely idealist work of Lukacs (History and Class Consciousness), in which “class is defined on the basis of consciousness rather than with reference to its members’ position in economic structure.” Also, many essential nuances within the intellectual movements it describes are totally elided. For example, it’s a distortion to pair Plekhanov with Lenin without elaboration, and the endless and ancient attempts to counter-pose Engels to Marx by identifying the former as a crude empiricist or positivist have been refuted at least as many times. The article writes “the fundamental difficulty of circular Marxism is the ‘causal’ relationship between consciousness and matter in history.” As we all know, this feature is what distinguishes Marxism from all early forms of vulgar materialism as well as from Hegelian idealism, and is only resolved by means of dialectical cognition of history, in which one can nevertheless be trained as Lenin did by studying the idealist Hegel. I am wondering if you, who I might assume would intellectually identify above all as a Marxist economist, believe that the study of the history of the philosophical currents within Marxism and its many controversies, would have a role to play in the revival of the Marxist movement today, or would it be better to focus on new theoretical tools as you have introduced in the above article (i.e. distinguishing complex and complicated systems).
Thanks for those critiques I should have read it more thoroughly. It’s embarrassing when bourgeois science powers ahead of Marxian analyses. Yes complicated and complex is vital to understanding the world. In business the failure to distinguish between them leads to unexpected economic costs.
“the world is sleepwalking into the cauldron …”
“China tells EU it does not want to see Russia lose its war in Ukraine: Wang Yi speaks of concern that US could shift whole focus in China’s direction in talks with top EU diplomat Beijing”
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3316875/china-tells-eu-it-cannot-afford-russian-loss-ukraine-war-sources-say
Preparation for war
“Key US Ally Quietly Prepares for China’s Pacific War With America
Japan will begin building bomb shelters next year on its remote islands closest to Taiwan …”
https://www.newsweek.com/us-ally-japan-prepares-plans-us-china-pacific-war-taiwan-strait-2090216
Thanks for those valuable links