You need to define EACH of these terms very clearly, to get informed answers to your question, and citing papers would be useful also?

Good day Craig, thank you for taking the time to write.

I hope you have heard about red Marxism/red socialism a la Karl Marx, It was about society first….No capitalism.

It seems you have not heard about green Marxism/green socialism yet, you can find about it if you google Cambridge university, books and green Marxism or Cambridge university, japan and the green manifesto. They are about NATURE first, no capitalism.

After that if you would like you can take a look at the question again as by combining red Marxism with green Marxism to get yellowMarxism, then perhaps you can see the structure and meaning of the yellow Marxism paradigm as a new way of life with no capitalism.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Yellow socialism or yellow unionism, was an economic system proposed in 1902 by Pierre Biétry, as an alternative to the "Red socialism" advocated in Marxism. Biétry envisioned workers organizing unions which would operate in parallel with groups of businesses (a structure similar to corporatism). Workers would get a greater share of company profits through negotiation between each union and the corresponding business group. Above this would be a strong authoritarian State.

Yellow socialism was prominent until World War I, competing with Marxism for support among workers. "Yellow socialism" was also a Marxist term of abuse for all non-Marxist socialists. After World War I, the term "yellow socialism" fell into disuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_socialism

Good day Harish, thank you for taking the time to write.

I appreciate your comment, I will check what Bietry wrote, it looks like yellow socialism or unionism for him was a way to keep capitalism alive by making a little bit worker friendly....Capitalism under social management and authoritarianism...while red socialism was social equality without freedom.

Green marxism/socialism a la Karl Marx abvocates saving nature from dwarf green capitalism, instead of saving society from capitalism....A new way of life based on nature first....Environmental equality without freedom.

Yellow marxism/socialism a la Karl Marx abvocates of saving society and nature at the same time from dwarf green capitalism....A new way of life based on society and nature first...Socio-environmental equality without freedom.

I am currently putting together ideas on the evolution of marxism ideas as the relevant of the different sustainability gaps embedded in pure capitalism changes through time(society, environment, society and environment) and to point out that marxism targets only flawed forms of capitalism as only then it can make a successful claim against capitalism by claiming that capitalism is leading to specific component external destruction depending on the relevant of specific components at that moment.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

"marxism targets only flawed forms of capitalism" This statement makes no sense to me at all. Marxism provides a critique of capitalism in ALL its forms; there are no "unflawed" forms of capitalism in Marx's analysis. Furthermore, I don't read those talking about taking Nature more into account than Marx did - what I assume you mean by "green Marxism" - as juxtaposing that (as you are doing) to some preoccupation with " saving society". Even in Marx's own analysis society and nature are analyzed as interwoven and part of his critique of capitalism was a critique of how capitalism ruptures the natural metabolism of human/nature inter-relations. So your "yellow Marxism", defined as "saving society and nature at the same time from capitalism" has been there from the get-go, in both Marx and Engels' writings. The neglect/exploitation of Nature by what you are calling "red" Marxists, which I take to mean Soviet-style Marxists, flowed from their abandonment of Marxism as anything other than a convenient ideology serving to hide their pursuit of the same goals as Western capitalism, i.e., maximum exploitation of workers AND nature via increased management by the state, which resulted in a new form of "state capitalism". Lenin, after all, was frank about following the German model of state capitalism, with the Soviet Union differing only in the ASSERTION (but not the reality) that the state would be controlled by workers instead of capitalists. Result: the same kind of exploitation of both humans and nature as the rest of capitalism.

Dear Harry, thank you for commenting.

You did not even try to answer the relevant question: What is the structure and meaning of yellow Marxism/yellow socialism?

You could have use that answer to bring in your comments into context and we could have gone from there.

However, based on your comments not directly related to the question:

a) I see your comments are based on thinking inside a box, if you think outside the box as an economist you could have asked yourself,,,,, What if Adam Smith in 1776 would have give us the theory of the perfect sustainability market/social and environmentally friendly capitalism instead of the theory of the perfect traditional market/raw capitalism? Would Karl Marx been able then to make a successful claim against Adam Smith's model in social or socio-environmental terms in 1848? What if Adam Smith would have giving us the theory of the perfect red market/socially friendly capitalism? Karl Marx could have made a green Marxism claim there and then, but not a pure red Marxism claim. What if Adam Smith would have giving us the theory of the perfect green market? , then Karl Marx could have made a pure red Marxism claim, but not a yellow Marxism claim....

b) You see, if you look at capitalism/Adam Smith and socialism/Karl Marx from the point of view of the sustainabillity gaps embedded in those models, then you can use paradigm evolution and sustainability thinking associated with the paradigms shift and flips that go one to one with those sustainabilty gaps to gain an outside the box view of the same issues.....

c) I believe Karl Marx views when actually implemented were not just distorted in environmental terms as you say, but also in implementing the socialism markets at social cost for ever as Marx giving his deep understanding of capitalism probably knew that you can not live under economic sustainability gaps for ever, and would not probably recommend that only as a first step in transitioning from raw capitalism to economic friendly red socialism....

In summary, there are ways to show what the structure, market and model, and meaning of red Marxism/socialism, whether you want it to be only a socially centered only or socio-environmentally centered claim against pure capitalism a la Adam Smith is, what the structure of the current green Marxism/socialism claim against dwarf green capitalism/Adam Smith model under environmental pollution management is. What the structure of the yellow Marxism claim against dwarf green capitalism/Adam Smith model under environmental pollution management is.

With this background, can you please try to provide an answer to the question at hand in TODAY’S WORLD:

What is the structure and meaning of yellow Marxism/yellow socialism?

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Well, Lucio, I did NOT answer your question “What is the structure and meaning of yellow Marxism/yellow socialism?” because, based on what you have said so far, I cannot understand the question.

To begin with, whatever you mean by “yellow” “red” or “Green”, your repeated juxtaposing of Marxism and socialism (of whatever kinds) in the expression “Marxism/socialism”, or Marxism slash socialism, or appears either to equate the two or to assert some kind of unspecified causal relationship between the two. The expression seems equivalent to the more common “Marxist socialism”. At any rate, equating the two is just wrong. Marx never provided a blueprint for post-capitalist society, indeed in his critiques of utopian socialists he argued against doing so. The pretending that Marxism is the basis of socialism corresponds to the ideological ploy of Western Cold Warriors whose objective was to discredit all Marxists and Marxist analysis by wrongly associating them with Stalin’s police state and gulag. When you write “Karl Marx views when actually implemented” implies that you share that mistaken idea that actually existing “socialism”, e.g., Soviet style whether in the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam or elsewhere, are structured according to “Karl Marx’s views”. They were not. Even Marxist-Leninists argued that while Marx provided a critique of capitalism, Lenin provided the guidelines for Soviet-style socialism.

Unfortunately, there WAS a relationship between “Karl Marx’s views” and Soviet-style socialism but one quite different from what you and the Cold Warriors have pretended. What the Soviets took from Marx, besides an ideology useful for attacking Western capitalism, was his analysis of the accumulation of capital as laid out in the three volumes of Capital and elsewhere. Instead of reading Capital to discover what NOT TO DO, they read it to discover HOW to do it, but with the Party in control. So, Marx’s analysis of capitalism, designed to provide workers with help in overthrowing it, became instead a guide to the development of state capitalism in the USSR and beyond.

Responding to your points a), b) and c).

a) None of your “What if’s” are imaginable, much less deserving of response. Adam Smith was a political economist dedicated to understanding capitalism with the objective of finding solutions to its problems and ways to better promulgate it. Insights such as the centrality of labor and how the division of labor crippled workers, Marx was happy to appropriate. But his objective was quite the opposite of Smith’s. He wanted to help workers overthrow capitalism not promulgate it.

b) I have no idea what “the sustainability gaps embedded in those models” refers to, nor what you mean by “paradigm evolution” or “paradigms shift and flips”.

c) I’ve already rejected the idea that Karl Marx’s views have ever been “actually implemented” in the sense you mean. I also have no idea what you mean by the words “implementing the socialism markets at social cost for ever”.

“In summary” Based on your evocation of “socio-environmentally centered[ness]”, the only meaning of “yellow Marxism” that makes sense to me would be a Marxist analysis of capitalism that takes into account capitalist exploitation not only of humans but also of nature. As I’ve said before that was there from the get-go although with far less writing on the exploitation of nature than on that of humans. So current writings by Marxists on the subject have been trying to elaborate his few remarks into a more complete analysis. The only meanings of “yellow socialism” that makes sense to me are those ponderings on how to build a post-capitalist society on the basis of healthier relationships between humans and the rest of nature. The problem, of course, is that notions of “socialism” vary so widely that I, for one, have abandoned the use of the term to talk about what we want. See: https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/socialismessay.html

Your statement Harry, ""Well, Lucio, I did NOT answer your question “What is the structure and meaning of yellow Marxism/yellow socialism?” because, based on what you have said so far, I cannot understand the question."

You could have said what you thought from your point of view the structure and meaning of yellow marxism/yellow socialism was or is, not based on what I said as Harish did, and I would have then tried to share ideas,

I am here in good faith to exchange ideas, not to convert anyone.

It is fine Harry, let's leave it here. I will leave it here.

Respectfully yours:

Lucio

Harish, I found your comment in wikipedia:

"Yellow socialism or yellow unionism, was an economic system proposed in 1902 by Pierre Biétry, as an alternative to the "Red socialism" advocated in Marxism.[1] Biétry envisioned workers organizing unions which would operate in parallel with groups of businesses (a structure similar to corporatism). Workers would get a greater share of company profits through negotiation between each union and the corresponding business group. Above this would be a strong authoritarian State.

Yellow socialism was prominent until World War I, competing with Marxism for support among workers. "Yellow socialism" was also a Marxist term of abuse for all non-Marxist socialists. After World War I, the term "yellow socialism" fell into disuse."

Next time you do that you NEED to cite the source in this case wikipedia if the material is not yours, otherwise it is plagiarism or at least you should try to write your interpretation of those thoughts and then share them. Otherwise, it is not appropriate to share it,

Respectfully yours;

Lucio