Maryland abolishes death penalty.

[FireIceTalon]

Max Eastman? You mean the guy who started out as the editor of extreme leftist "The Masses"? The guy who went to the Soviet Union during the revolution, and was chums with Lenin, and Trotsky? It is perhaps inconvenient for your belief system that after fully immersing himself in Communism, and Marxism that he converted to a more enlightened position.

Meaningless argument, since I can use the same logic for myself, or any other Marxist that lives in the United States or any other given capitalist state. Perhaps it is inconvenient to YOUR belief system that I (or any other given Marxist, before or after me) became disillusioned with capitalism and took a more realistic position? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Well, yes. I read the entire "for beginners", and am in the process of digesting the entire lecture series. How about you? Interested at all in alternative views from other Marxists? Or, are you trapped in your "Marxist Bubble"?

I don't care if you've read Capital cover to cover multiple times.

I am interested in the views of other Marxists, and that is why I engage in discussion fairly actively over at the revleft.com forum, which has Marxists, anarchists, and other types of socialists of all stripes. I have no problems with Marxists who want to build on the foundation that Marx and Engels laid down, since as capitalism develops so too, must Marxism (hey, dialectics right there! Woot!). In fact, it SHOULD be encouraged. If otherwise were the case, I would reject every single Marxist who came after Marx and Engels, and I would be wrong for doing so. However, there are certain aspects and tenets that make Marxism what it is as a mode of analysis, and should never be removed or altered. Dialectical Materialism is one of those things, and there is a good reason why the overwhelming majority of Marxists, regardless of their particular tendency, still use it and consider it so central to understanding capitalism. Because we generally agree that anti-dialectics is ultimately an abandonment of Marxism, or is anti-Marxist.

But, this is your unfounded proposition. You can't just claim he is wrong, and you are right. In between, there needs to be a rationale for making such a claim. You've yet to provide anything like it.

So, you think neo-colonization of third world countries, has nothing to do with developed nations exploiting the resources and markets of 3rd world nations, and that all the wars have nothing to do with expansion and competition of global markets, in the big picture? You think these problems have SOLELY do with the involved institutions and actors, and not the totality of the system which shapes them and their actions? I think its time for you to get real here, and snap out of your Libertopia fantasy.

This is a DM answer. We can't know because the future hasn't happened yet. It's crap. I know that if no one plants crops, we won't eat. I know that if we crap in the water we'll have no safe drinking water. I can predict some futures, not all, but some. This is the notion of risk and reward. I could eat all the grain, or I could risk some of the grain by planting it, to get more grain. It is a fundamental thing.

This is a gross oversimplification. We aren't talking about planting fucking crops or starting a book drive here, where outcomes are much more predictable. We are talking about the change of an entire social order, which is billions of times more complex. We can predict some possible outcomes for capitalism - it will either be destroyed by revolution and replaced with a more progressive and democratic social order, or it will degenerate into some barbaric social-darwinian society or natural catastrophe, since the system cannot ultimately sustain itself. As Marxists, we want to make sure the former happens, and prevent the latter.