Also published by Countercurrents, OpEdNews and The Rag Blog.
Why Marxism Has Failed, and Why Zombie-Marxism Cannot Die
Or My Rocky Relationship with Grampa Karl
by Alex Knight, endofcapitalism.com
Part 1 – October 29, 2010
[Click to see Part 2]
“The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.” – Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852
“Once again the dead are walking in our midst – ironically, draped in the name of Marx, the man who tried to bury the dead of the nineteenth century.” – Murray Bookchin, Listen, Marxist!, 1969
A specter is haunting the Left, the specter of Karl Marx.
In June, my friend Joanna and I presented a workshop at the 2010 US Social Forum, an enormous convergence of progressive social movements from across the United States. The USSF is “more than a conference”, it’s a gathering of movements and thinkers to assess our historic moment of economic and ecological crisis, and generate strategies for moving towards “Another World”.
Our workshop, entitled “The End of Capitalism? At the Crossroads of Crisis and Sustainability”, was packed. A surprising number of people were both intrigued and supportive of our presentation that global capitalism is in a deep crisis because it faces ecological and social limits to growth, from peak oil to popular resistance around the wold. Participants eagerly discussed the proposal that the U.S. is approaching a crossroads with two paths out: one through neo-fascist attempts to restore the myth of the “American Dream” with attacks on Muslims, immigrants and other marginalized groups; the other, a path of realizing and deepening the core values of freedom, democracy, justice, sustainability and love.
Despite the lively audience, I knew that somewhere lurking in that cramped, overheated classroom was the unquestionable presence of Zombie-Marxism.1 And I knew it was only a matter of time until it showed itself and hungrily charged at our fresh anti-capitalist analysis in the name of Karl Marx’s high authority on the subject.
It happened during the question and answer period. A visibly agitated member of one of the dozens of small Marxist sectarian groups swarming these sorts of gatherings raised his hand to speak. I hesitated to call on him. I knew he wasn’t going to ask a question, but instead to speechify, to roll out a pre-rehearsed statement from his Party line. I called on others first, but his hand stayed in the air, sweat permeating his brow. Perhaps by mistake or perhaps from a feeling of guilt I gave him the nod to release what was incessantly welling up in his throat.
“I don’t agree with this stuff about ecological limits to growth. Marx wrote in Capital that the system faces crisis because of fundamental cycles of stagnation that cause the falling rate of profit…”
With the resurrection of Marx’s ancient wisdom, a dangerous infection was released into the discussion. Clear, rational thought, based on evaluating current circumstances and real-life issues in all their fluid complexities and contradictions, was threatened by an antiquated and stagnant dogma that single-mindedly sees all situations as excuses to reproduce itself in the minds of the young and vital.
Marx didn’t articulate his ideas because they appeared true in his time and place. No. The ideas are true because Marx said them. Such is the logic. If I didn’t act fast, the workshop could surrender the search for truth – to the search for brains.
I would have to cut this guy off and call on someone else. I knew better than to try to respond to his “question” – it would only tighten his grip on decades of certainty and derail the real conversation. Unfortunately, there is no way to slay a zombie. Regardless of the accuracy or firepower in your logic, zombie ideas will just keep coming. The only way out of an encounter with the undead is to escape.
I motioned my hand to signal ‘enough’ and tried to raise my voice over his. “Thank you. OK, THANK you! Yes. Marx was a very smart dude. OK, next?”
Karl Marx was without a doubt one of the greatest European philosophers of the 19th century. In a context of rapid industrialization and growing inequality between rich and poor, Marx pinpointed capitalism as the source of this misery and spelled out his theory of historical materialism, which endures today as deeply relevant for understanding human society. He emphasized that capitalism arose from certain economic and social conditions, and therefore it will inevitably be made obsolete by a new way of life.
For me, what makes Marx’s work so powerful is that he told a compelling story about humanity and our purpose. It was a big-picture narrative of economy and society, oppression and liberation, set on a global stage. Marx constructed a new way of understanding the world – a new world-view – which gave meaning and direction to those disenchanted with the dominant capitalist belief system. And in crafting this world-view, Marx happened to do a pretty good job wielding the tools of philosophy, political economy and science, aiming to deconstruct how capitalism functions and disclose its contradictions, so that we might overcome it and create a better future.
Brilliant ideas flowed from this effort, including his analysis of class inequality, the concepts of “base” and “superstructure”, and the liberating theory of “alienated labor.” Marx also showed that the inner workings of capital live off economic growth, and if this growth is limited, crisis will ensue and throw the entire social order into jeopardy. For all these reasons, Marxist politics – the Marxist story – remains popular and relevant today.
But due to serious errors and ambiguities in Marx’s analysis, Marxism has failed to provide an accessible, coherent, and accurate theoretical framework to free the world of capitalist tyranny.
I believe Marx’s foremost error was his propagation of the older philosopher Hegel’s linear march of history. This theory characterizes human society as constantly evolving to higher stages of development, such that each successive epoch is supposedly more “ideal” or “rational” than what came before. Marx’s carrying forward this deterministic narrative into the anti-capitalist struggle created the confusion that capitalism, although terrible, is a necessary “advance” that will create the conditions for a free society by the “development of productive forces.” This mistaken conception often put Marx, and his uncritical descendants, on the wrong side of history – arguing that in order to achieve the ideal of socialism or communism, countries first had to follow the Western European model of becoming capitalist first.
Hegel’s framework of linear progression blinded Marx to non-European, feminist, and ecological critiques of capital’s violent conquest of the world. Without this knowledge, Marx charted a flawed strategy for radical social change that missed the core of what human freedom is all about. Instead of vocally, unambiguously opposing European colonialism and the displacement of small farmers from their land, Marx construed the proletarianization of the world as a matter of capitalism “producing its own grave-diggers.” Focusing narrowly on the economic “misery” of capitalism and upholding the proletariat as the agent of history, Marx simplified the aims of the anti-capitalist project to a matter of the working class seizing state power to “increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible” (Marx-Engels Reader 490).
This mechanical focus on the hardships of workers led Marx to overlook the many other ways that capitalism threatens life on this planet, and therefore also the resistance coming from those outside his framework: peasants, indigenous cultures, women, youth, queer and trans people, students and intellectuals, immigrants, people of color, artists, and more.
Perhaps most urgently for our moment of climate meltdown, Marx’s view of capitalism as an “advance” blinded him to the ecological destruction that capitalism reaps on our planet, from deforestation to the extinction of species and so much more. Preoccupied with the “development of productive forces,” Marx predicted that communism would come about due to capitalism placing “fetters” on economic growth. Growth itself was perceived as inherently good, and the rational proletariat would advance it further than capital ever could. Following this logic to its conclusion, Marx praised industrialization as creating the material conditions for the “scientific domination of natural agencies.”
Afflicted with these blindspots, the Marxist narrative was defenseless against repeated manipulations, and mutated into ideological cover for “Socialist” and “Communist” tyrants who have been chief enemies of human liberation. Where Marx’s doctrine didn’t fit the reality of social struggle, as in Russia, China, and every other country that has experienced a “Marxist” revolution, his disciples attempted to transcend reality in order to fit Marx’s doctrine, instead of transcending Marx’s ideas in order to fit reality. The results have been nothing short of nightmarish.
A zombie idea is an idea that has been demonstrably proven false by reality, which has expired in its usefulness, but which continues to reproduce itself by preying on real-live hopes and fears. A zombie idea cannot adapt to new conditions, it only decays. It lacks moral purpose, but will continue to lumber on, propelled by an insatiable hunger for as long as it can find unfortunate victims.
Sadly, disturbingly, much of Marxist thought today finds itself in such a state. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the monstrosity of “actually existing” Marxism spectacularly failed to bury capitalism. Quite the contrary, it was shocked to find itself swept into the “dustbin of history.” Proven wrong, this dogma hasn’t stayed dead. Now a mockery of the living philosophy Marxism once was (and for some still is), Zombie-Marxism has continued to weigh heavy on the collective mind of the Left, for the simple reason that we haven’t turned a critical eye to Karl Marx’s body of work itself.
This essay is not meant to be an attack on any particular Marxist, or even on sectarian groups as a species of organization, but rather on a mindset, which uncritically carries forward Marx’s ideas into present circumstances where they no longer fit. Too often, Marx is invoked as an authority on subjects of which he was totally silent on. When Marx did make a statement related to a current issue, it is viewed as confirmation of his wisdom, rather than evaluated for the relative clarity or obscurity which it throws on our understanding of capitalism and revolutionary practice today.
We need to carry out an autopsy on the old man. There is much to be gained by reading Marx. But when we look to him for all the answers we transform him into a prophet and transform ourselves into a mindless herd. One hundred and fifty years after Marx’s major writings, it is beyond time to ask ourselves: What did Marx get right?, What did he get wrong?, and Why has Marxism failed in practice? Finally, how can we integrate Marx’s brilliance alongside the insights of many other necessary thinkers, to create a common-sense radical analysis, based not on ideological blueprints of the past, but on our lived conditions in 21st century late capitalism?
I was once infected with Zombie-Marxist ideas myself. I overcame this infection and freed my mind of such undead ideas, so I know it can be done. Of course, I am not the first, nor will I be the last, to raise these questions and attempt a critique of Marx. For example, in this essay I will draw from the feminist critique of Silvia Federici, the anti-Eurocentrism critiques of Edward Said and Russell Means, the ecological critique of Murray Bookchin, the anti-statist critiques of Mikhail Bakunin and Emma Goldman, the anti-dogmatic critique of Cornelius Castoriadis, and others. I offer my own perspective on the Marxist tradition in the hope that others find it useful, and to spark conversation on the need to constantly re-examine our assumptions. Marx himself wrote:
“The social revolution of the nineteenth century cannot draw its poetry from the past, but only from the future. It cannot begin with itself before it has stripped off all superstition in regard to the past” (M-ER 597).
In this era of capitalist crisis, when the entire system threatens to implode, new challenges, and new opportunities, are springing to life. To be relevant to our own century requires shedding the dead superstitions of the past, and facing the future with critical consciousness.
In this essay, I will first recount how I became a follower of “Grampa Karl”, and why I was eventually disillusioned. In the two following sections I will lay out my critique of Marx, limited to what I see as Marx’s five most enduring contributions and his five most debilitating mistakes. In the remaining parts of the essay I will explain how these theoretical failures led to “actually existing” Marxism – a monstrous dogma which dominated the revolutionary left for a century, and still perpetuates itself as an undead ideology even after mortifying two decades ago. Finally I will attempt to rescue Marx from the zombies haunting his legacy and situate him in what I call a common-sense radical perspective of living anti-capitalist politics, incorporating newer theoretical developments such as “de-growth,” “reproductive labor” and “transformative justice.”
My Encounter with Grampa Karl
When I was 18, I read the book Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser. The book famously declares “there’s shit in the meat.” Fast Food Nation exposes how factory farms, which produce the vast majority of meat for US consumption, are hell-holes where unsanitary and unsafe practices not only carry out unspeakable animal cruelty, not only endanger and exploit their workers (who are mostly undocumented immigrants), but also pump out enormous quantities of excrement-laden and potentially dangerous meat, which has even killed children with E.coli. And this is to say nothing about the “normal” health effects of ingesting fast food. The fast food industry is also directly responsible for the clear-cutting of the Amazon rainforest, as huge areas of the world’s most diverse ecosystem are burned down and replaced with ranches raising cattle for Americans’ burgers.
As Schlosser documents, the meat industry is well aware of their socially and ecologically destructive practices, but persists in them for the simple and undeniable reason of maximizing profit. The ongoing disaster has nothing to do with evil or immoral people – the system itself is responsible. Capitalism is feeding us shit and we’re “lovin’ it.”
Facing this truth was too much for my teenage apathy to withstand. My dispassionate ignorance of the world – cultivated by years of television and video games – was suddenly shattered on the grim rocks of reality. As my world-view lay in jagged pieces, I found myself overwhelmed with questions. “Is capitalism killing our planet?” “Why doesn’t anyone know about this?” “If they know, why don’t they ever talk about it?” “Is it wrong to think this way?” “Am I a Communist for asking these questions?”
I sank below waves of uncertainty and anguish. I thrashed about for any explanation of how this terrible reality could make sense. I clamored to know what I could do about it. Drowning in questions, I longed for answers.
Karl Marx presented me with the first solid ideas I could stand on. I read “Alienated Labor” and it gave me a name for the anguish I was experiencing. My hatred for my job did not mean there was something wrong with me, but that I was responding correctly to an alienating and exploitative situation. I wasn’t wrong; the system was wrong.
Feeling validated by the old man, I rapidly developed a strong affinity for his teachings. I read “The Communist Manifesto,” “The Civil War in France,” even “The Grundrisse.” Although the language was thick and foreign, I slowly waded through because my efforts were occasionally rewarded with profound nuggets of insight into my own world. I discovered a long and complex history of Marxist anti-capitalism.
I felt as though I had been mentally rescued. I had found an ideological home, from which I could launch criticisms of the capitalist system and encounter others who desired revolution. Marx was our guide, my guide. His story of class struggle gave me meaning and purpose, which is what I had been seeking.
In mainstream American society, Karl Marx is like an estranged grandfather who no one brings up in polite conversation. A long time ago there was a bitter falling out over politics and he stopped being invited to family functions – all the better because he wouldn’t be caught dead at those “bourgeois” ceremonies. If the subject of Grampa Karl ever does come up, it’s usually in the context of a ghost story meant to frighten and silence unpatriotic sentiments. For example, Glenn Beck says Marx is controlling our president and destroying the country. On the other hand, Grampa Karl does get some favorable mentions in the university, where the facade of liberal education is more important than any minor disturbance that the introduction of students to Marx’s obscure rantings is likely to produce.
When I became a follower of Grampa Karl, I knew I was distancing myself from the mainstream. If people realized I was consorting with that rabble-rouser they might have thought I was crazy or stupid, or both. I had no problem with that. Rather, I had such contempt for the dominant culture as it exists, that I relished the identity of outsider and rebel. Moreover, the old man had promised me it was only a matter of time before capitalism collapsed due to its internal contradictions. Time was on our side. I cherished my secret Marxist hope and laughed behind the back of bourgeois society.
But as time went on, Marx’s warts began to show. First, I noticed his almost-total silence on issues of ecology. Being motivated largely by my concern for capitalism’s apocalyptic approach to life on this planet, I strained to find even the slightest clues of environmental consciousness in Marx’s writings. Instead, I was confronted with the faulty notion of a linear development of history, with liberation equated with human domination of nature. It became increasingly apparent that Marx didn’t have all the answers for me. His analysis was trapped in another century, when industrialization still seemed like a good idea to people.
Nevertheless, I was not ready to abandon my political home just because I had such doubts. On the contrary, I clung all the more desperately to my mentor, seeking to prove him right and his critics, perhaps even myself, wrong. Looking back, I can locate in myself the attitude of one afflicted with Zombie-Marxism. If I didn’t understand what Marx was saying, it was because he was speaking to a higher truth that I couldn’t grasp. If Marx’s ideas were questionable, I hastened to silence the questions. Instead, I sought to dispose of them by returning to Marx’s writings and scouring for quotes or passages, no matter how tangential, which could be used to clobber those who dared to doubt the wisdom of Grampa Karl. I felt close to Marx as to a guardian – he had pulled me from confusion and provided me with clarity. Through him, the world made sense. Or at least I thought it did.
My questions didn’t ebb. I became disturbed by the company Marx was keeping. Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists, and more, all swarming around him and treating his every word as gospel. Worse, they seemed to spend more energy feuding with each other than building the kind of movement we need to overturn capitalism. I attended the 2006 Left Forum in New York City and despaired at seeing the horde of Marxist sectarian grouplets denouncing one-another over petty ideological questions that had been irrelevant decades ago. Were these people engaged in the same project that Marx had given me?
My disappointment grew, so that when the anarchist critique finally reached me, I was ready to listen. Although it was plainly apparent to me that people like Lenin and Stalin had entirely distorted the liberatory potential in Marx and created something horrifying, the anarchists pointed to the errors of Marx’s ideology and method which paved the way for those distortions. No matter how smart someone is, they are bound to make mistakes, so labeling yourself an “ist” of someone’s name is to engage in the worship of an individual, which can only detour you from trusting your own feelings and thoughts. How could someone know better than yourself what is hurting you and what you need to heal?
I saw this cult of personality in Venezuela, where I could not walk down the street, turn on the television, visit the beach or the mountains without seeing President Chavez’s name or face everywhere. This essay is no place to critique the policies of the Chavez government, which are complex and contain both positive and negative aspects, but the omnipresence of an uncritical Chavismo made me cringe on an emotional level, even if I firmly supported his government against the right-wing U.S.-funded opposition.
I felt betrayed by Marx. He should have known, and stated clearly, that politicians, no matter how progressive, cannot make revolution. It has to come from the bottom – from everyday people organized in social movements – fighting for their liberation. Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” suddenly appeared to me as a pathetic joke. How did he not see how such an absurd idea would be exploited by opportunists? Disillusioned in Venezuela, I read Emma Goldman’s My Disillusionment in Russia and parted ways with Marxism.
Even though Grampa Karl and I are no longer close comrades, Marx continues to influence my politics because there is much to value in his writings. A full recounting of his genius would be too difficult, but I will explore 5 key contributions of Marx that I believe remain relevant and useful insights today, during capitalism’s global crisis. Then I will follow this with what I see as the 5 most urgent failures in Marx’s analysis, from which spawned the Zombie-Marxism lurking in our midst today.
Karl Marx was no prophet. But neither can we reject him. We have to go beyond him, and bring him with us.2 I believe it is only on such a basis, with a critical appraisal of Marx, that the Left can become ideologically relevant to today’s rapidly evolving political circumstances.
Here is an outline of the entire essay. Check back soon for more!
- Introduction
- My Encounter with Grampa Karl
- What Marx Got Right
- What Marx Got Wrong
- Linear March of History
- Europe as Liberator
- Mysticism of the Proletariat
- The State
- A Secular Dogma
- Hegemony over the Left
- Zombie-Marxism and its Discontents
- Conclusion: Beyond Marx, But Not Without Him
Footnotes
1. The idea of a zombie ideology was transmitted to me from Turbulence magazine and the “zombie-liberalism” they discuss as taking the place of neo-liberalism in the wonderful article “Life in Limbo?”
2. This framing comes to me through Ashanti Alston, the “Anarchist Panther,” and his excellent essay “Beyond Nationalism, But Not Without It.”
32 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 29, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Tristan Husby
Great essay Alex! I can’t wait for the second part. Also, I’m sad that we didn’t meet at the 2006 Left Forum (did you happen to go to the discussion on Anarchism and Democracy?). I was tabling with SDS for most of the event, as it seemed more fun than attending the talks.
October 29, 2010 at 9:36 pm
alex
hey tristan!
thanks for the comment. yea, i think i saw you there (briefly) at the sds table. that was before we met though. but that is how i found out about sds! thank god something useful came out of that event.
alex
October 30, 2010 at 1:48 am
Richard Walters
Marxism did not fail!
It is scientifically predictable that the effect of capitalism will cause Socialism and the cause of socialism will create the effect of communism.
For a “QUALITATIVE” change to take place all of the necessary conditions have to be in place for the change to successfully take place. Otherwise it will come into being prematurely and will have a small chance of surviving, or die in the womb because of a lack of life support.
October 31, 2010 at 2:07 am
Patrick
lol Look, saying something’s “scientific” doesn’t automatically make it so. Obsessing over “necessary conditions,” instead of accepting 1) that the course of human events is much too complicated for a prediction like that and 2) your ideology needs re-examining, inexorably leads to using variations of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy whenever someone offers a historical critique.
October 30, 2010 at 2:53 am
Marie Marshall
Very good essay, Alex. I think you are articulating this kind of argument better than anyone else at present.
Of course as a zombie-Bakuninist I have to watch my mouth right now! :-)
October 30, 2010 at 10:56 am
alex
thanks marie for the words of support!
October 30, 2010 at 11:48 am
eric b
nice article very crisp, as someone who is not particularly Marxist educated im not so sure what you mean by base and superstructure… ?but ill guess ill find out. i think that your progression from Marxist to a more open anti-capitalism, is something (i hope) a lot of critical young people are doing.
Anarchism (or maybe just how it presents itself in America) has a more fluid list of dogma, but i think needs similar attention because all of its particularities are keeping ;lots of people stuck in not so relevant ideology. Another article could be written about that, but i think the impulse for people disillusioned with the staleness of marxism to jump onto anarchism is big, and the blindness to its own problems is not talked about much. Wondering if you see this too?
October 30, 2010 at 2:32 pm
alex
hey eric!
thanks for the commentary. i definitely see the tendency of anarchism to dogmatize and make itself irrelevant too. maybe in the future i’ll write about it, or maybe other people have already written about it!
alex
October 31, 2010 at 2:57 am
Marie Marshall
Maybe other people are writing about it (present tense). :-)
October 30, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Joe Ramsey
I am sympathetic to the basic thrust of this article, which calls for critical thinking about the work and the legacy of Marx, and for opposing cultish or fetishistic clinging to Marx (or any figure!) as the end-all and be-all of social critique. (Also the catchy Zombie cartoon got my attention!)
But in terms of engagement with Marx and Marxism, this essay leaves much to be desired. It is just plain inaccurate and/or uninformed on a variety of key points.
For instance, it is just not true that Marx ignored the ecological and environmental impacts of capitalist development–though he IS often accused of just this by people who have not read him thoroughly, and though of course his time didn’t see the same level of capialist ecocide that the world is experiencing today. (Also your take on Marx’s alleged acceptance of colonialism as a result of his faith in the linear progress of history is very one-sided and misleading.)
For a detailed account of Marx’s ecology–and a refutation of various “ecological critiques” of Marx–check out the book of that name (Marx’s Ecology, by John Bellamy Foster) or any number of articles in Monthly Review. http://www.monthlyreview.org . MR remains just about the best journal out there for thinking about capitalism and the ecological crisis, through a scientific, marxist approach.
Here’s a snapshot of what they have published.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrmarxistecology.php
Among other things, much of this work challenges the widespread belief–common among many on the left, and, from the sound of it, embedded in the assumptions of your 2010 USSF panel–that the ecological catastrophes that are coming will result in the “end of capitalism.” There is a lively debate on this question.
Perhaps that speaker that you cut off at the USSF was trying to raise an important question after all!
October 30, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Russ
You beat me to it, Joe. I just went to fetch this link:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/nov2008.php
This issue contains several essays discussing the mistaken perception that Marx never wrote about ecology. The most important idea, reflecting the influence of Liebig on Marx, is the metabolic rift arising out of the separation of town and countryside.
With regard to to the cryptic exchange about anarchism just above, would anyone care to give examples of these alleged anarchist dogmas?
November 6, 2010 at 10:13 pm
alex
hey russ,
in response to your question about anarchist dogma – i think any set of beliefs can dogmatize when it narrows itself to strict or fundamental beliefs. i’ve definitely witnessed anarchists having uncritical attachments to things like consensus, black bloc as a tactic, not voting… i’m sure you could think of more!
it’s not that these things are bad, but anything can become problematic when applied without thinking about what strategically or politically makes sense.
alex
November 6, 2010 at 1:47 pm
alex
hi joe,
thanks for providing your feedback! and thanks for engaging in a constructive manner.
i am going to flesh out my critiques of marx in part 3 of the article “what marx got wrong”. hope to see that finished in the next week. so i’ll leave that space for a fuller discussion of what i perceive to be marx’s anti-ecological and eurocentric biases. here’s a few thoughts in response for now.
i’m familiar with the green Marxism being developed by the Monthly Review and John Bellamy Foster. in general i think it’s great that Marxists are engaging with ecology, it’s really important to bridge the ‘red-green’ divide that is weakening our movements.
i also have never said that marx’s critique of capitalism cannot be adapted and made relevant to an ecological critique. they can, and they should be. so it’s good that they’re doing that.
however, i am highly suspicious of attempts to rewrite marx as an environmentalist, for at least 3 reasons:
1) marx’s comments on nature are few and far between. of course there are a smattering of vague comments he and engels made which can be construed as not wholly anti-ecological. however, these are overwhelmed and drastically outweighed by marx and engels’ anti-ecological statements, especially in the repeated and unqualified statements in favor of industrialization and technological “progress.”
although i haven’t read any of Foster’s books, i’ve read reviews and summaries, as well as plenty of his articles, which i find to be unconvincing and obscurantist.
the new one “The Ecological Rift” appears to be based solely on that one comment Marx made paraphrasing the research of soil scientist Justus von Liebig, as Russ cites below. somehow this one comment is then wildly extrapolated to create a “new” ecological concept of an “ecological rift,” thus completing the 180 turn for marx to now suddenly being re-interpreted as some kind of environmental hero.
the only step left is to rewrite the history of environmentalism and make Marx the ideological godfather of it all. nevermind that the “rift” between humanity and the rest of nature has been the core of environmental thought forever, going back thousands of years to when humans were first alienated from nature by agricultural empires.
2) unlike the side-comments people like Foster like to craft arguments around, marx and engels’ anti-ecological statements come directly from the main thrust of their argument. they were very clear that capitalism was an “advance” precisely because it “developed the productive forces,” and that the task of a communist government would be to industrialize “as rapidly as possible.”
washing over these statements, and holding up a few tangential and ambiguous comments about nature as evidence of marx’s supposed “ecology” is at best questionable and at worst intentionally dishonest.
again, marx and engels stated that the domination of nature by humanity was the goal. “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific” is quite clear that communism will mean the rise of humanity to a position of “the real and conscious Lord of Nature.” this anti-ecological argument is not just found in random side-comments about something else, but forms the core of marx and engels’ view of historical development.
3) recasting marx as an environmentalist carries a politics with it, whether acknowledged or not. marx has a lot of baggage. horrific, atrocious things were done in his name – not only to the planet, but to humans. if this is not acknowledged, then implicitly it is being obscured.
are we supposed to believe that the soviet union, communist china, etc. and their environmental crimes had absolutely nothing to do with marx’s faith in progress and “development of productive forces”?
why is it that everytime something new happens in the world, marxists go back and flip through everything marx and engels wrote to find a passage that reveals that they saw it coming? why does marx have to say something in order for certain people to believe that it’s important?
isn’t it enough that we see the death of our ecosystem as imminent, that we feel it in our bones, that there are signs of it everywhere we look? why not validate ourselves, or maybe the thousands of people who have written and developed ideas explicitly about the economy’s abuse of nature and ecology over the course of history and still today? why do we have to constantly single out marx, even when he barely said anything of relevance to what we’re talking about that wasn’t entirely contradictory to our (ecological) politics?
by remaining uncritical of marx, marxists continue to reproduce his errors. the ONLY way to transcend 19th century socialism is to critique marx. otherwise he is implicitly being put forward as a prophet, like he has been relentlessly for the last 150 years, to terrible effect.
i do not mean to attack or condemn anyone. but this topic does make me angry, because i feel that dishonesty is at work. if we were truly honest with ourselves we would not be grasping at marx’s coattails. he was not perfect, and we need to stop worshipping him.
alex
October 30, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Tony
I am in _near_ complete agreement with your analysis, except for one important point: There are a number of marxisms beyond the orthodox varieties you identify, and not many fit your description of zombie-marxism. After all, Rosa Luxembourg as well as Emma Goldman insisted that revolution has to come from below. And for the last twenty years at least, there have been some marxists who have been developing a critique of capitalism on ecological grounds, and basing this critique at least in part on Marx’s own writings (uncovering a part of that contradictory legacy that is not well known). This is something different than marxists jumping on a bandwagon opportunistically – it’s a serious attempt on their part to contribute something of use to movements who take ecology seriously. In the U.S., this probably started with the “red greens” in the 1980s (as represented, say, by the journal “Capitalism, Socialism, and Nature” and the projects of the group associated with it). This is also a marxism informed by critiques from anarchists, feminists, and those who identify most with non-European left traditions (again, not the usual orthodox mix of Lenninists & Trots that you name).
In terms of an explicit and sustained ecological marxism, probably foremost in this effort is John Bellamy Foster, who has published a number of books with titles such as: The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth (2010); The Ecological Revolution: Making Peace with the Planet (2009); Ecology Against Capitalism (2002); and Marx’s Ecology (2000). This last argues that Marx was very aware of and wrote about ecological destruction in his time, and also wrote about ecological limits. If we who identify with other left traditions argue that he did not, or that his legacy is contradictory at best, we should at least acquaint ourselves with this newer understanding, and what folks like Foster are basing it upon.
The tradition I most identify with is anarchist, though I think it is important to remain open to developments in and insights from other traditions (as you seem to also, above). Again, there are many marxisms, and, as you must know, this also means that there are folks who call themselves ‘libertarian marxists,’ council communists, etc. who are likely allies of anarchists in struggles and projects, and there are also many – perhaps not all, but many – ‘ecological marxists’ and ‘red greens’ whom I suspect you would certainly not consider zombie-marxists (those who uncritically attempt to push a party line or parrot an orthodox analysis, or who connive to take over movements & organizations, or who if they did have power would establish cults of personality).
Without becoming any less critically aware or principled, we who identify with other traditions on the left should keep informed about and open to conversations and possible alliances with at least some of the folks who consider themselves marxist. I suspect you feel similarly. As insighful and well articulate as your analysis is, then, I do question the usefulness of the term ‘zombie-marxism’ and the related language of infection. If we start using frames like this to understand our development in the alter-left, the UNINTENTIONAL consequence may be both a demonization of all potential allies who think of themselves as marxist, and a related belief that there is some kind of ideological purity that we can attain if we remain vigilant (paranoid?) and uninfected by certain ideas (ie. stay away from anyone who might possibly have those ideas, anyone not comfortably enough like ourselves). Again, I’m not saying – at all – that this was your intention, and maybe my concern is unwarranted. But language as heavy with associations as “zombie” and “infection” is too close to a left version of Rush Limbaugh’s use of “fema-nazi” to steer his listeners clear of any consideration of feminist concerns or analysis. We should do better on the left. If we desire to see a movement build from the bottom up, shouldn’t we think about such unintended consequences?
November 6, 2010 at 10:24 pm
alex
hey tony,
i really appreciated your comment. it was very thoughtful and helpful.
i definitely agree that there are many marxisms, many of which have articulated some of the same critiques that i am putting forward. “dr. woooo” mentions Midnight Notes, for example, who i have gained a lot from reading, as they are grounded in a deeper understanding of class struggle than that put forward by marx.
your concern about using the “zombie” language caught me off guard a bit. i see your point, i’m not trying to demonize anyone. however, i think that in the essay i am being very intentional to distinguish that i am not saying PEOPLE are zombies, only ideas.
also, i thought it would be obvious that the zombie motif is a halloween-related pun. it’s supposed to be silly, not mean-spirited.
but thanks for raising the concern. it gave me something to think about.
alex
November 1, 2010 at 7:39 am
Peethambaran.P.
Whether environmental concerns were there etc is purely academic.
And there are enough material to show Marx and his comrades did engage themselves etc.
The point which is contemporaneous and helpful is that part of theory or practice which brings a Taliban orientation to all: Marxist” leading untold violence and misery to ones own fellow comrade.What is that in this philosophy which we need to —
more than any thing else the politics of revolutionaries needs to be interrogated Yes it has been done but not enough.
November 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm
dr. woooo
I’ve tried to submit comments a few times, and have less time now than usual to type it again.
Anti-state versions of Marxism have lots of offer
Council communism, autonomists ( not just the Italians, but midnightnotes.org, revoltagainstplenty.com, the journal the commoner. )
Marx’s linear history belief is misrepresentative according to this review of marx at the margins in http://insurgentnotes.com/2010/10/review-marx-at-the-margins/
– check out waltermignolo.com for some interesting challenges to Marxism, but I disagree that ‘decoloniality’ cant be complimented by some versions of Marxism…
November 1, 2010 at 2:03 pm
LD
Love it! And the outline for the parts to follow has me very intrigued…. I will surely tune in. Keep writing, Alex!
November 4, 2010 at 6:03 am
uma
strange that you keep trying to contextualise marx in his time/space, but simultaneously argue that he did not make links with or raise the issues of environmentalism, queer rights, gender concerns and so on. what results is mere confusion and an ahistorical reading of marx.
politics is a process, and thus it was for later marxists to critique the possible lacunae in their theory, as well as address such concerns through movement and in theory. i feel that there has been a vibrant and creative re-thinking within marxist movements as well as an engagement with what may be more equitable and environmentally less dangerous development models from within the organized marxist tradition as well. a number of movements which are against corporate loot, grabbing of peasant land, big dams, mining and displacement of indigenous peoples in india for instance draw support and are led by organized left movements, Marxist-Leninist movements. thus how does this get placed within the “linear march of history”/”one linear, teleological” mode of development kind of argument? perhaps it would be useful to look at the kinds of questions on capitalism, patriarchy and so on, which have been thrown up by marxist movements in contexts other than just the US, before deciding that it is a dead force. after all ideologies are living things, they become real through practice. why not try and understand the experience of the practioners today rather than lambasting marx for things it may not have been possible for him to foresee?
November 6, 2010 at 11:14 pm
alex
hi uma,
thanks for commenting. let me try to respond to your concerns.
1) my argument is not that marx failed to foresee our current ecological crisis. that would be ahistorical and silly. instead, it’s to point out the arguments marx made which were inherently anti-ecological, eurocentric, patriarchal, etc.
even if in 1860 there weren’t the same movements that exist now, there were still women, queer people, gender non-conforming people… and there was still a capitalist system devastating the planet’s ecosystem. even if people didn’t use these words, the realities existed, and many people were concerned about these issues, organized around them, and wrote about them. so i don’t think it’s fair to excuse marx for his ignorance on these subjects, or for promoting such ignorance through his writings.
2) i’m eternally grateful that there are peasant movements and others resisting “development” in India and around the world. and i am glad that people in those places are rethinking marx and adapting his critique of capitalism to become relevant to their circumstances and struggles. this is commendable, and i would never suggest that marx cannot be made complementary to anti-colonial movement. he can and should be.
however, marx made numerous and repeated comments which to me indicate that he would not have stood on the side of those movements. and this is something to be aware of. even if some of his ideas are useful, some of them are dangerous and led him (and can lead us) astray.
for example, in his article “The Future Results of British Rule in India”, Marx sides with the British colonization, even if he finds it gruesome, because he believed it was necessary to destroy the communal cultures of India in order to usher in “civilization.”
“England has to fulfill a double mission in India: one destructive, the other regenerating the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and the laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/07/22.htm
this is not so much an exception as it is the logical conclusion of his linear march of history logic.
3) i never said marxism was a “dead force,” only that it has thus far failed in its mission of ending capitalism. i am trying to discover the reasons for this failure (and the state capitalist deformities of places like the Soviet Union) – and i believe it is necessary to locate the mistakes in marx’s ideology which led to these failures. these ideas must be exposed and scrapped, otherwise they will continue to weigh on our minds and mislead us.
is it wrong to critique someone’s mistakes? i’m not saying marx shouldn’t be read, i’m saying read him critically. please read part 2 of the essay for “What Marx Got Right”: https://endofcapitalism.com/2010/11/04/zombie-marxism-part-2-what-marx-got-right/
thanks again
alex
November 6, 2010 at 9:24 pm
J Davis
There is a big difference between dialectics and linear change. The author needs a better grounding in dialectical thinking.
November 6, 2010 at 11:18 pm
alex
hi j davis,
thanks for commenting, but i think your statement is condescending. why not just tell us what you think the big difference is, and how marx did not believe in a linear progression?
alex
November 10, 2010 at 12:07 pm
somnath
it is surprising to see the ease with which you use Marx and Marxism interchangeably! What Marx had to say about capitalism and its discontents has to be contextualised against a specific time and history. the eurocentric bias in Marx’s thought has been pointed out long back and to equate it, in the end with- besides other things like its inabilitiy to take up issues of ecology, women, queer rights etc. – the ‘failure’ of Marxism to do away with the capitalist structure is stupid. its like Fukoyama bragging about the end of history with the decline of soviet union and the ‘triump’ of world capitalism. since Marx, Marxism has been interpreted and re read in varities of ways which also take a form of critical and positive engagement with it. only when we make this distinction seriously, that we can make some space for what you are arguing, which is namely, the” inherently anti-ecological, eurocentric, patriarchal, etc.” biases in Marx. one of the major flaws of your articles is that closes all space for those peoples’ struggles and movements that work with their own variants of Marxism, in the process challenging those very biases which are present in Marx’s work. nevertheless, all these movements adhere to some form of Marxism which has to be credited with providing the only possible and alternate world view to capitalism. Marxism as an ideology, as a thought process, has come a long way to acnowledge its own defects, and one cannot very easily discount or overlook that fact so comfortably as you did! similarly, Maoism did not dogmatize Marxism further! it built upon Marxism reworking it from within.
since you have so painfully listed the different issues with which Marxism supposedly does not concern itself, one also needs to consider the fact that marxism atleast provides us with the framework to understand how these different issues interrelated, how capitalism sustains by keeping certain groups on the fringes, and how the marginalisation of the indigenous rights and the women rights are intricately related to ecological concerns and cultural rights.
November 10, 2010 at 11:02 pm
alex
hi somnath, thanks for commenting!
i’m sorry you think my article “closes all space for those peoples’ struggles and movements that work with their own variants of Marxism.”
i disagree that the article does this. i agree with you that there are marxists trying to come to terms with the errors in marx’s ideology, and i applaud them for doing so.
that’s why i said “This essay is not meant to be an attack on any particular Marxist, or even on sectarian groups as a species of organization, but rather on a mindset, which uncritically carries forward Marx’s ideas into present circumstances where they no longer fit.”
if people are specifically trying to NOT be zombie-marxists, but living marxists, then more power to them. i’m suggesting that in that process, it is important to look at these issues which are problematic, for example the idea that capitalism is a necessary prerequisite for a free society (or “socialism” or “communism”) is incredibly problematic, and leads to all sorts of atrocities as “socialist” regimes try to Westernize, displacing their small farmers from their land and attacking the ecosystem through industrialization.
since you mentioned Mao, we have to be critical of his philosophy and actions in this regard, attempting to industrialize rural China through the “Great Leap Forward”, which was an attempt to Westernize, and which resulted is some unknown number of millions of deaths by starvation.
i see no compelling reason to defend such atrocities, and many compelling reasons to condemn them. moreover, we should condemn the thinking that created these atrocities, much of which (i assert) traces back to marx himself.
finally, i disagree with your assertion that “Marxism which has to be credited with providing the only possible and alternate world view to capitalism.”
this is false. there are MANY, many alternative world views, from feminism to anarchism to fundamentalist islam to buddhism to pan-africanism, and etc etc etc. (i dont agree with all of them either, although most contain at least some truth which is important to look at).
marxism happens to be one of the most popular counter-hegemonic world-views, but by no means is it the only one, and i wouldn’t even say it’s the best one.
i do think marx presents some very important ideas for anti-capitalism, so like i say we can’t dismiss him. i hope you’ll check out Part 2: “What Marx Got Right”. https://endofcapitalism.com/2010/11/04/zombie-marxism-part-2-what-marx-got-right/
thanks again
alex
November 25, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Pablo Castro
Alex, as a brazilian reader of your blog, my english is not very good to comment deeply at every aspect of marxism and the critics to zombie-marxism ………………
I just agree that Marx´s work is very important but not a Bible, a sancrimonial book in which there is all the truth we need to know.
I agree that the ecological situation is a limit to the system, but reading the german philosopher Robert Kurz ( I don´t know if you´ve read about him), I am convinced that the deep heart of the crisis is in the economic sphere, and that it´s that question that is about to become clearer, we´re about to see an economic collapse before any ecological collapse,
because capital is losing his ability to expropriate real surplus value, which is the substance of accumlation, and therefore , as Marx himself predicted, as the economic sphere has gradually invaded all other spheres of human life, it´s its collapse that may be the trigger to all the transformation that is impossible to avoid in this century.
I don´t say it cool, because an economic collapse such as this will throw all human relations on a danger zone, and very many people, specially the poor, will suffer with this …
But, anyway, it seems that a “historic appocalypse” is the only way to imagine a better world.
Thank you
December 5, 2010 at 3:19 pm
alex
hi pablo,
thanks for the intelligent comment! it seems you have a good grasp on the historic nature of our current moment.
check out my interview on “The End of Capitalism” to get a fuller idea of my perspective. Part 2: https://endofcapitalism.com/2010/07/23/the-end-of-capitalism-interview-part-2a/
alex
April 24, 2011 at 3:19 am
Brendan DPM
Hi, I know this an old thread, but these are the very problematic contents of Marxism I currently dealing with, and want to find a way to put to rest.
I would like to thank you for your essay, and I hope you finish it one day, it is very clear and readable and brings out the very real contradictions between Marxism and the current anti-capitalist and revolutionary practice. You challenge Marxism in the right places.
But, Alex, I hope you can answer a question for me. Does your position not ultimately become one of romanticising some original, pre-capitalist past? Even if we recognise that British Imperialism was hideous, are we therefore barred from acknowledging that fuedal India was also in many ways? Even if modern science is tainted by ideologies of dominance, was pre-capitalist and mysticism religion better? Should the world never have changed, and if we change it now, do we only do so in order to change it back? If we recognise no progressive element to capitalism, aren’t we stuck with an extreme conservativism, even primitivism?
I know you are a reader of Sylvia Federici. As am I, and an admiring one. Yet I wonder if she really believes that world that she presents as having been possible. Did not the religio-ideological basis of the revolutionary waves. And even she shows a very Marxist core in her argument, in that it is very much emerging proletarian, urban, and peasant populations that entered into very new relations in the early modern period who are the revolutionaries she describes. Its not pure resistance in the name of the old.
Even if ‘increasing the productive forces’ is a sad and mechanical yardstick for progress… what John Bellamy Foster calls ‘productivism’, and rightly sees as being the central problem with historical Marxism.
April 24, 2011 at 3:59 am
Brendan DPM
Sorry… I prematurely posted that, I hope you dont mind if I continue in a second post…
Even if the development of the productive forces is a sad measure of anything… should they be in stasis? Should all industry be abolished, or is it only in an industrial society that we can ask the question: how to redesign our own relations of production? I think it is. I don’t think a fuedal society could have asked that. I think the impossibility of asking that question was ultimately the reason Thomas Muntzer and most of the revolutionaries in early modern europe thought, in Christian terms, of a final apocalyptic battle, after which history would effectively end and God himself would reconcile Heaven and Earth. Would you prefer that religious mode of consciousness?
When Federici praises the embodied and relational virtues of magic, the ‘communalising’ folk-ideology capital had to smash, is she doing this because she believes in magic, or becuase she believes science could have been founded on a different basis and can still be refounded?
Was the past always superior to what capitalism has brought about, including in terms of the POTENTIALS it has brought about but cannot realise becuase of the class nature of accumulation— genuine world community with communications technology, mass leisure and flexibility of work, the ability to devote great resources to rehabilitating nature, space travel, harnessing the full power of the sun, pursuing freely the true nature of reality instead of relying on traditional myths or religions, whole new modes of art and entertainment, sports and even spiritual reflection?
The time capitalism producing anything ‘progressive’ is over, and to begin with, its ‘progress’ was predicated on massive forms of destruction. But what I think Marx was really trying to say was that it nonetheless necessarily.
And historically, the modern proletariate has forced more concession and dealt more revolutionary blows to capitalism than any other social force. This does go someway to validate his point about ‘capitalism creating its own gravediggers’. At that time, the peasant landholders were unable to hold onto their land and effectively, and capitalism did create, by disinheriting them through the enclosures, a historical agent wish has shaken it rather more deeply, and which continues to. Ultimately, Federici is not entirely in opposition to this statement either, she too sees the enclosures as the trigger for a struggle which continues today. Yet today, historical conditions are different, and the peasant and indigenous struggles against the current waves of enclosure have a different historical character. They dont fight a young capitalism, but an aging, senescent capitalism, while they themselves have the character of a new political force, able to make universal as well as particular demands.
P.S. Besides, it is not really fair to say that Marx ‘excused’ the enclosures. This comes from a moral discourse he was not engaging in. In pointing out the fact that violence and bloodshed of enclosures was inseperable from capitalism, he pointed out also that the loss of this struggle over one means of production created a new and different struggle over a new set of productive forces, which ultimately far more likely to result in victory… History would avenge the enclosures.
Now, you, I suppose think that this control over the means of production should be expressed by abolishing them?
April 24, 2011 at 7:08 am
Brendan DPM
hmmm..
just so there is no confusion…
I agree with you about the percieved need to industrialise and modernise along the lines of Western Capitalism prior to the possibility of socialism. This is a fallacy, and does lead to variants of the atrocities that capitalism presents us with.
I too want to rid the world of ‘productivism , eurocentrism, mechanicism, patriarchalism’ etc… even when these are found hiding under the name of Marxism. But I think the way to do this is via an immanent critique of Marx, and that there is much in his writings, and in rereadings, potentially against the grain, of his arguments that can help in this, while preserving the ability to see (extremely) relative forms of progress and new potentials coming out of capitalism itself, and including appropriations and utilisations of them in the strategy against it.
I think we have to keep in mind that we are all products of capitalism, and that our struggles are too. Therefore, we must recognise that there has been sometimes desireable developments within capitalism, and developments within it that we can use. We (in struggle) are amongst those developments, amongst what was historically impossible without it. And we must therefore, in affirming ourselves and our struggles, take the risk of affirming some consequences of capitalist development. We represent the contingency and perishability of capitalism, and we will grow stronger every day.
December 9, 2011 at 3:44 am
david tarbuck
I can sympathise with what you write herein; I had “Marxist” atheist parents and grandparents and I also had to find the way forwaed when some (not all) of what I learned proved irrelevant.
Some overlooked points when rehashing “Grandpa”:
Marx did not “neglect” ecology. In his time the 6-700million inhabitants of the earth had not yet reached the point of catastrophic destruction of the 20th century and beyond. Petroleum had only just begun to replace fish oil and atomic fusion/fission were not yet imagined, much less reality. That population was also NOT out of balance with a perpetual BALANCE of interdependent living species on our small planet. In Marx time there had been but two works on population, William Petty thought correctly and envisioned resources being finite, in the distant future population would hit a limit, However the one that caused Marx and anyone else who can think to react most negatively was Sycophant (suck-ass) Parson Malthus “Essay on Population”; that was a sop to the ruling classes excusing them for population proplems and misery that they caused the poor to suffer.
Marx was emotionally aroused by “Children as young as seven years being yanked from their cots at 4:00am to work 15 hours in a dirty dusty mill!”
The problems of a different time.
Incidently, Grandpa Marx was NEVER an Atheist. Read his disertation, his musings on choice of a vocation &c. He was put off by his Jewish parents conversion to Christianity for economic reasons and by organised religions role as “Opium of the people” but that does not necessarily lead an Agnostic or Deist into dogmatic Atheism; that nonsense is part of Zombie Marxism.
However the ONE PARAMOUNT mistake that he and many so called “Marxists make is reliance on a “state”. All the ‘states’ in our time are Capitalist and need to be turned asunder. as JOB #I!!
April 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm
arufonsu
(Copied-pasted)
My friend, theres always hope somewhere in the world, an example of this was in Chile~
Footage from the 2004 Chilean movie “Machuca”
On september 11th, 1973, A US government (and corporation) backed military coup in Chile ousted democratically elected President Salvador Allende and ended South America’s oldest constitutional democracy.
Allende was considered the worlds first democratically elected MARXIST leader and embarked on far reaching social and economic reforms in chile. This led to hostilities with Chiles wealthy elite as well as the united states.
After the coup, the military maintained control of Chile under the leadership of General Augusto Pinochet, one of history’s most infamous dictators. During his authoritarian right-wing rule, thousands died and countless more imprisoned for both their political beliefs, and their economic class.
Chile remained in this dark shadow until a new government was formed in 1990.
declassified U.S. documents have revealed that the Chilean military was both supported and funded by the U.S. government in the coup.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_FUBELT)
The American Company ITT has also been found to have assisted in the coupe financially to protect their economic interests.
I believe this is one of the more important (and overlooked) moments in both U.S. and world history. I hope you all learn something from this video.
And I hope that you realize that regardless of your political leanings, what happened in Chile in 1973 was wrong, and nothing like that should ever happen again…
Socialism party have lost his root ideas in Chile
but this generation, young students of the generation 93’s
will grow up, with Marxist forms and ideas, we will be back to what democracy should be like, with the people and workers,
Soon, the US gov will be traped on their own walls,
we can see this progressive suicide with the SOPA issues,
since they banished Megaupload, they are getting IP blocked around the world~ Now is time to watch how the capitalism system slowly dies…
November 27, 2012 at 12:53 am
The Arrival of Zombie-Capitalism « The End of Capitalism
[…] power and install socialism from above, i.e. Leninism. This notion of how to develop communism has now zombified itself; it’s long since faded into the dustbin of history, so the fact that this logic is still walking […]