A blog version of our Two Manifestos (also in pdf and Amazon kindle)

It would be useful to have our manifestos as a editable blog post…(warning, 51 pages below the ‘More’ button)

reduced from PDF to Word document

needs a second edition rewrite…

 

Two Manifestos

Toward
A New Communist Manifesto
&

Democratic
Market Neo-communism

John C. Landon

South Fork Books
© Copyright 2016
John C. Landon
Published by South Fork Books
Montauk, NY

Printed in the United States of America

Contents
toward a new Communist Manifesto 5
Democratic market neo-communism 41

//Omitted: Appendix:
1848+: theory, Ideology, And Revolution 51

TowArD A New CoMMuNisT MANifesTo

…The distinguishing feature of Communism is
not the abolition of property generally, but the
abolition of bourgeois property. But modern
bourgeois private property is the final and most
complete expression of the system of producing
and appropriating products, that is based on
class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the
many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the
Communists may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property… From the
Communist Manifesto

The Crisis of Capitalist Globalization

At a time of social crisis, the classic Manifesto of Marx and Engels in the era of the 1848 revolutions resonates with an eerie relevance for the age of neoliberalism and dangerous climate change. The clever fiction of the end of history is exposed as an artifice of philosophic legerdemain, Hegel from the bottom of the deck. The original tour de force would be a hard act to follow, but in reality our ‘new’ manifesto is a studied echo of the old brought to its real future, via the prophetic desperation of two revolutionaries before their time. The era of the 1848 upheavals, in the last tremors of the mighty French Revolution, has been called a turning point in world history, but one which failed to turn. It is an ironic aspect of our current era that this
‘revolution manqué’ is an apt metaphor for our own predicament. It threw down the gage to the future of the whole of industreality. That remarkable period of revolt was a shot over the bows of the capitalist revolution unfolding toward its long march to globalization, with the problematical outcome of its success beset once again with the haunting realization the failure to turn is a world of markets going mad. A rational limit or else overthrow of the new capitalist affair might have spared the planetary community much suffering, but now the issue goes into the critical zone, as the crisis reaches a point of no return. And that moment has a symbolic significance in terms of a larger view of world history.

The status of late capitalism is desperate:

As the planet nears the point of no-return at the threshold of climate criticality, the conservative sector of the American congress threatens to veto the US treaty obligation with respect to the recent Paris climate conference: this example typifies the extreme terminal ideological seizure of consciousness by capitalist ideology and tokens a recompute of the American system of government…

The crisis of capitalism is the crisis of planetary destruction in the onset of catastrophic climate change. And this is becoming a crisis of modernity itself. The inability of the powers of government to mediate the capitalist process condemns both and asks for a program of (new) communism to bring sanity to a body politic mesmerized by the ideology of economic illusion. The tenets of free market economics have been exposed to stark falsification in the inability of the system to respond to the disaster of climate change. This extreme example leads to a second look at much of the rest of the ideology of random economic activity. Self-regulating markets are shown to be a myth. The effect of ideology blinding agents to their situation is clearly prophesied by the earliest observers of capitalism.

Marx/Engels correctly saw the crisis of globalization and deserve to speak for our present in the rough outline of their remarkable Manifesto. We must try to ‘throughpass’ their classic while creating a more flexible superset

of that classic as a venue to practical realization. We will concretize the result with a gesture to define ‘market neo-communism’ as one realization of the original proclamations. We must emphasize the prefix ‘neo’ and move to a discussion of a New Communism as if encountering the idea for the first time.

Marxist shibboleths It is a spectacular effect to see the period of the passing of the Hegelian school proceed to the era of Feuerbach and the many associated figures of that period, including Marx and Engels who spawn the new vision of economic history just at the point of the failed revolutions of 1848. Those revolutions failed, but they prophesied the future of a ‘last revolution’ that would set the true fate of modernity. Clearly they were premature, as Marx/Engels sensed…Those two went on to create a remarkable canon to codify a new view of society, economics, and revolution, one that would nearly overtake the twentieth century, despite what we see now is still another version of the failed revolutions of 1848, and the roll back after 1989. Marxism produces a powerful basic corpus, but, as noted, it has elements of distortion, or so we suspect…. We should note that it was beset with the difficulty of analyzing economic systems, the debates over the labor theory of value, as one example, and the sudden onset of marginalist economics in one of the spookiest of capitalism dead bed survivals. Beyond this we see also the appearance of Kantian ethical socialism in an attempt to critique the reductionist positivism of the marxists. Beyond this the proliferation of social democratic substitutes for the full transition beyond capitalism.

Leninist interlude The first aftershock of the 1848 ‘failed revolutions’ was the great Russian Revolution, which was both a standard democratic revolution of the classic type attempting to overthrow the medieval Tsarist phantom, and a first attempt to bring about the final revolution against capitalism. The question of Leninism arises in this context as a hard to evaluate circumstance that carries a flawed ideological complex but which probably prophesies the future of ‘chase plane’ communism to come.… Lenin is not a transparent figure who belongs to his followers, but a mysterious agent of revolution in a prefiguration of the coming of postcapitalism. The core issues are the ethical perspectives of the agent of change, and the need for an economic solution to the operation of markets. We can and should argue the ‘dialectic’ of these two questions, and see the way an ethical nihilism, foreseen by the Kantian socialists, can enter like bilge water into the good ship Communism, and the way that the cunning capitalists with tricks of phantom calculus outplayed Marxist rendering of Adam Smith,

and how figures like the market evangelist Mises, etc., performed the feat of turning the idea of freedom into a libertarian finesse, along with a valid challenge to socialist planning on the grounds of the dynamic of markets.

Last Men and their Smartphones The passing of the Leninist Interlude has given the appearance of final sanction to the capitalist future, but already by the end of the twentieth century the reality would seem that a flawed socialism was abandoned to search for the real thing, even as the so-called neoliberal age began a rapid conquest of globalization, economy, and government. The fall of the original Leninist interlude begins even to seem a mistake, despite its massively flawed outcomes.

The basic development of communism is and remains nonetheless a world historical outcome to the modern transition, in ambiguous relation to democracy, and will spawn sooner or later a new version in the wake of the failure of bolshevism… At the moment of climate crisis, we sense the desperation of the euphoria over the capitalist miracle with its final gesture of planetary destruction. The debate over the last man, which started with Nietzsche takes an ominous leftist form as the ideological rigor mortis of capitalist ideological in its final symptoms produces a social nexus completely bemused to the point of blindness to the destruction of environment, and the final carbon destiny of the capitalist industrial revolution. Nietzsche was a distortion of the early modern, but had a point about the ‘ last man’: the participants in the modern experiment are moving toward the completion of the ‘great transition’ or the evolution of man, and this requires that ‘free agency’ come to an understanding and self-replication of the macrosequence…. But the downside is the commodity fetishism so visible in the smartphone mania outbreak at the point of atmospheric breakdown.

Last Phase of Capitalism We can conclude by pointing to the eerie downfall of the capitalist Faust in the pact with the logic of derivatives and catastrophic margin calls. We refer the reader to the Hollywood movie…. the profits in downfall. The last phases of capitalism show the capitalist axioms proceeding toward the destruction of the world system in an orgy of financialization… The period 2008 made plain a new form of capitalist finance: the bet against the system, an omen of the self-destructive character of the capitalist lunacy syndrome…

Drafting a New Manifesto…

Our stance must reckon with the difficulty of even listing all the issues relevant to the case. We start with a stripped down simplification:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. From the Communist Manifesto

We take one key paragraph from the Manifesto and then move to create a larger domain of discourse for its realization, including a discussion of history in a book as appendix. This selection of one key idea can lead to a path that can both extend and leave alone the original legacy. We might think in terms of a dialectical review or negation of the original tradition, and a final reaffirmation of the core. But we will also be critical of dialectics.

We come to a simple resolution of the issues in crisis: the core of the Manifesto of Marx and Engels, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie: we must propose the return of the property wrested from the Commons to the Commons. We are done.

The legacy of marxism can pass into an appendix mediating its classic themes with a strong dialectical negation, and reconstruction. But an elaborate theory is not needed. The original critique was of ‘theory and ideology’: rival theories have obscured the original cogency of the critical expose.

We can create a virtual manifesto based on the original’s key idea: the abolition of private property and review the whole legacy emerging from that. Our aim here is a kind of generalized manifesto generator as a series of proposals for an historical review of the classic of Marx/ Engels, next to the legacies of nineteenth century revolutionaries. At the forefront is the question of postcapitalism and the defining histories, and futurism, of the communist project, here to be dubbed ‘neo-communism’. We can put this in the context of a larger perspective based on a universal history of man in the context of evolution.

Our manifesto is therefore about a form of (market) neo-communism

in which the ownership of capital reverts to the commons. This is not the same as state socialism or the control of economies by a ‘bourgeoisie’ of revolutionary one-party professionals. This core axiom is related to the classic discourse of primitive accumulation.

Despite the problems, the core analysis of Marx/Engels created a revolution in thought that exposed the issues of class and class struggle, theory and ideology, and the potential of the working class. Much of this should animate the manifestos of the future.

The definition of the ‘working class’ is often ambiguous and the concept might imply the persistence of class and class ideology/domination by one class persisting into communism. Our manifesto will propose a generalization of the working class: The Universal Class.

Challenging the legacy of marxism would create a lot of resistance and in many ways it is fine the way it is, taken as the Old Testament to a New. Simple demesmerization is enough. But the legacy’s theoretical add- ons create unnecessary resistance in many who would otherwise support a postcapitalist option. We can suggest a larger framework than that of Feuerbach, historical materialism, and dialectical materialism. These subjects are not necessary for a movement toward a New Communism. Having used an idea of the dialectic we should also move to critique the legacy of dialectical thinking and the way it has produced a set of confusions based on logical superstition. An avenue to a New Communism cannot successfully foreclose on religious issues using historical materialism. A new movement in this cast must become cognizant of the place of religion in world history, the interior content of such legacies as Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, and redefine the secular in terms more adequate than the humanism cultism of the era of reductionist scientism. Strangely, aggressive ‘secularists’ have tried to redefine modernity by ignoring the work of figures such as Kant in mediating the issues of metaphysics shared by both religion and scientism. Our appendix offers an empirical chronology able to reconcile multiple contradictory viewpoints., as an encyclopedia of civilizations.

This early period of Marx/Engels was prior to the emergence of the now dogmatic canon of marxism whose overall format is classic, but may be inadequate to the task of a transition to postcapitalism: it was outflanked very early by neo-classical economics. and the communist idea was merely packaged by marxism. It source is prior to the onset of the marxist legacy.

The canon of Marx/Engels has become dogmatic and is further entangled with the legacy of the Second and subsequent Internationales, including the entire episode of the Bolshevik revolution. The roots of modern communism predate the coming of marxism and we are under no hard and fast obligation to honor the capture of the idea in the era of scientism.

We might consider the figures of Lenin and Stalin red herrings that do not indicate an experiment toward communism. Despite the cogency of many aspects of Lenin’s remarkable coup d’etat the Bolshevik experiment is an immense distraction. The left needs to start from scratch with the real components of the question.

The context of modern economies is confronted with the idea of a New Communism with the potential of electoral to revolutionary challenge. We know such a revolution is possible because all of our modern states began with revolutions, and the core issue of marxism was to create a form of communism in order to save the bourgeois revolution for ‘real democracy’. We are beset with many more issues than were discussed in the classic of Marx and Engels, the most critical being the world of strategic nuclear war and deterrence. We will adopt a perspective of universal nuclear disarmament as appropriate to the mood of communist internationalism.

We confront the intractable question of peace in a global system of states as we attempt a federation of socialist republics. But our more general matrix may well provide the clue to the solution of this complex issue.

This in turn raises the question of our focus on the US system and its history and liabilities: we can envision a national version of ne0-communism in an international context. We have three or more situations: an international movement of the working classes (or our Universal Class)

locally and globally as a colonial revolt against American imperialism the same as a revolt against a global system of neoliberal domination itself internationalizing and attempting a radical transnationalism (e.g. the TPP conventions making national governments subject to secret tribunals) national movements of communist revolution in isolation or tandem internationally joker in the deck transformation of the ‘empire’ candidate via Napoleonic expansion of an imperial postcapitalism.

The latter is preposterous but can focus thought with a reminder of

the way democratic and communist ideas can fail.

The question of communism has been suffered the extremes of its proponents and critics, and worst of all, in spite of the cycle of realization given by the Bolshevik era, a failure to define its canon in a fashion that is fully coherent. Despite the illusory discourse of the ‘end of history’ it remains true that there is a consistent tension between the realizations of democracy and socialism or communism. We should be careful to qualify the term as New Communism.

The ‘end of histor y’ meme has been extremely destructive. We can replace this mystification with a new model of history showing the relationship of freedom, free agency, revolution, democratic emergence, historical dynamics, and historical directionality or teleology. Hegelian mystification has muddled both capitalist ideology and marxist scientism.

We might forget that one of the first revolutionary movements of the modern era, that of Thomas Münzer and the Peasants Revolt of 1625 sounded a communist note, and this in a religious context, long before the tide of democratic revolution cresting at the end of the eighteenth century and beyond. This should warn us again of what many latter radical students have diagnosed: the democracy manqué of the many bourgeois revolutions that arose. This phenomenon is visible in the counterrevolution that emerged in the wake of the English Civil War. This kind of criticism animated the profound analyses of such as Marx and Engels, and the issue was finally the great puzzle of how to really stage a democratic revolution if this was always the frustrated outcome as capitalocracy.

The classic legacy attempts to impose the theory of historical materialism, but this is a luxury a new movement should do without. That legacy became mired in the confusion of evolutionary theories, although Marx saw the problem at once.

The revolut iona r y movement of t he modern t ra nsit ion was a protocommunist formation. The progression toward democratic revolution, e.g. the English Civil War, and abolitionism, was clearly associated with Protestant versions of the Reformation. The sudden alternate track in the wake of figures such as Feuerbach has its own logic but threw the legacy of communism out of kilter by alienating religious sectors with reductionist ideologies such as historical materialism.

Historical materialism is a curiously apt depiction of economic ideology, but as a theory it fails, and critics seem to know this better than marxists. But all theories of society in the cast of scientism are destined to fail. We can take the module as an ideological flourish, or philosophic experiment, a creature of its time, with a point, one we should not forget, recasting it in a new and more cogent format. That format should failsafe with a recursion of the entire dialectical spectrum of the modern transition, electing to proceed with renewable interpretative subjects.

This legacy suggests that the early marxist formulation became an excessively narrow perspective colored by the post-Hegelian reaction and the onset of positivistic scientism. The reality of modernism is clearly something much broader and a New Communism must refound modernity as a whole in a new constellation of economic postcapitalism. It needs a generalized systems view of history, rather than a dialectical contraction around dogmatic materialism. It must find a true dialectic in the counterpoint of opposites given by the early modern, between religion, science, philosophy, and the arts.

The era of scientism that absorbed marxism also produced the reign of Darwinism and this was exposed many times as an ideology of social Darwinism. The left needs to assist the progress of science in exposing this pseudo-science without getting entangled in the field of religious reaction based on creationist thinking.

The many studies of the Iron Cage effect of the nineteenth century expose the plight of cultic marxism and its problems with theories soon the object of multiple refutations and critical attacks.

The legacy enforces a now dated materialism which is beside the point. A communist society of the future needs a broad spectrum of philosophy. That was provided from the start by German Classical philosophy, which was rejected in the phase of the post-Hegelian reaction.

The core issue of the revolutionary age of the early modern, a query we inherit, is the nature of modernity itself. In many ways the modern has been hijacked by the capitalist transition at the end of the eighteenth century, granting that the larger history of capitalism stretches over history since the Neolithic in its primordial versions. And yet the early modern shows a far different character beyond the gestating economic format that so soon overtook its future.

The secular equivalent of religion In many ways the nature of modernity remains an enigma: its sudden contraction in the nineteenth century has been observed by many. Perhaps this is the reason that the early modern transition seems to generate a dual personality, between religious reformation and scientific revolution, as if the latter as it bootstraps toward higher levels of complexity is constantly stalled in a reductionist scenario. The companion in parallel of religious continuation of retrograde antiquity carries the remainder not covered by science. This situation was partially mediated by Kant, but the larger picture of secular era must be seen to include ‘religion’ in transition.

Examples of the discrepancy between the two systems in parallel modernity are beliefs about free will or agency, the reality of the soul, issues of immortality, the ethics of social action, and much else. Modernity is an incomplete study thus. Questions of religion, evolution, and idealism versus materialism are routinely botched in the secular sphere. The religions of the Reformation, now followed by the flood of New Age movements attempting to exploit the ‘crisis of modernity’ for religious reaction. A New Communism should be dialectically ‘rich’ and thus beyond theism/atheism, propose or accept beliefs in homo sapiens as a superstitious ape with a soul, a will, a psychology of complex consciousness, an aesthetic/ethical sense, with a Kantian propensity without limits to metaphysics. The soul/self seems to border on a noumenal/phenomenal distinction.

Such formulations are numerous, dime a dozen, but they warn us not to foreclose on the complexity of man with simplistic reductionism, or futile collisions of materialism and idealism.

The sudden replacement of the emergence of ethical modernism as a philosophical successor to religion was suddenly replaced with the card tricks of figures such as Adam Smith unwitting proposing a ‘transvaluation of values’ long before Nietzsche, and this has destabilized the philosophic, cultural, what to say economic outcome of an instantly distorted modernity (taken as the successor to conventional religious ethics). Figures such as Marx moved at once in a kind of instant feedback to challenge this sudden blight on the ‘modern question’. Smith himself is misunderstood and that figure was quite aware of the dangers of his ‘fix’ in the nature of ethical reasoning. Unfortunately, the scientism of the early marxists crippled their ethical reasoning, a factor subject to attempted correction by the appearance

of the Kantian ethical socialists.

That modernity began we often forget with a Reformation, and was counterpoint in a dialectical spectrum of immense richness, between science, religion, philosophy, political science, art, and, indeed, economics. There was never a stable outcome in the economic fundamentalism that became the social matrix for such an abundance of innovations. And just as the capitalist phenomenon became the hidden lever of state it was also to condition all other aspects of modern culture. It is not surprising therefore that emerging from the radical protests of the age of democratic revolution was a protest against the revolution itself as an ambiguous empowerment of a new class, the bourgeoisie.

The generation of Feuerbach attempted a radical caesura with the legacy of religion, as a final stage of the Reformation. But in the era of scientism this backfired. A New Communism must fulfill this gesture in any case, but should review its early modern potential and try again via the secular equivalent of religion

This nexus of core ideas was the source of the classic rendering of Marx and Engels starting in the 1840’s when a whole series of radical thinkers produced a first realization of the core symphonic of the early modern. This period remains ambiguous and its secular humanism seems now a contracted version of a legacy it could barely master, but this was the period of the first high tide of secularism, capitalism, and evolutionism, soon to become the dominant paradigm of Darwinism. But a reasonable strategy must be wary of ill-considered negations of these legacies: it is necessary to create a superset of the originals.

The parallel, almost ominous, appearance of a chase plane antagonist seemed unable at first to justify its prophecy of postcapitalism, but the two centuries since that forward pass into our future shows the mysterious coordination of opposites that constitute the early modern. We see now the prescience of the whole period in the way it spawns the track of globalization via the phenomenon of the market and the future resolution of its concealed contradictions in the gestation of revolutionary communism, so eloquently foretold in the famous manifesto of the year 1848.

The question of communism is the question of democracy itself, and the totalitarian outcome of the Bolshevik revolution requires a double critique

of state socialisms and the nexus of capitalist domination of the bourgeois state, And the totalitarian drift of the American juggernaut must expose the full story of the hidden coup d’etat created by the emergence of covert agencies. The record of conspiracy is barely told even on the left, and the climactic moment of the record of imperialism, manufactured war and covert action must focus on the extravagant turn of events in the documented 9/11 conspiracy whose implications stretch from the question of who controls the American system to the place of Israel in the control of its politics. The 9/11 conspiracy The shocking discovery of a hidden cabal behind the events of 9/11 has exposed a deep vein of criminality behind the current US government. This a revelation of a secret government invisible to the public, and its neutralization is essential for any real change. A revolutionary government is at severe risk of being taken over by such entities.

In relation to this a leftist perspective confronts the stark reality of the history of modern Israel and its indirect influence on American politics. A coherent stance against this apartheid system enters inevitably into any discussion of transformation of American politics.

The left has defaulted to its anarchist and Gandhian pacifist modes as the full complement of revolutionary action is excised from the definitions of activist radicalism.

The emphasis of Marx and Engels on the working class was a classic of strategy but one that confronts a shift in the nature of sociological realities and the ambiguity of class in the generation of a Universal Class. The working class is often the object of rightist manipulations giving it a reactionary character. And the working class in an international constellation of outsourced work zones beyond the reach of a national entity. Our new manifesto might posit the action of the Universal Class in the context of the abolition of private property and the restoration of industrial ownership to the Commons as a legal entity with constitutional independence from communist elites emerging in a one party state solution of the type that confounded the Russian revolution. The issue is simple: we cannot really hypostatize an abstraction such as the ‘working class’ as an agent of history.

The legacy of marxism is ambiguous: it is stuck in another century. The gist of our manifesto is to take the core paragraph of the original: the

expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and set the rest to one side. We don’t need a theory of historical materialism, dialectical materialism, such a strong prejudice against idealism. We need simple praxis not trying to convert everyone to a new philosophy.

We need a core movement that has some marxist dna, but which operates with its own version of a new communism, able to decipher the neo-classical economic illusion, ready to fight for control of the industrial apparatus in motion, and ready to create a market communism, possibly on its way to full communism. A market communism with a Commons, as opposed to state control by a one party bourgeoisie calling itself radical, with a cutoff point below which some forms of commerce, industry, and agriculture operate independently would be nice. Issues of constitutional balance of powers, core rights (without liberal economic rights of capital), newly defined democracy, national/transnational action to create a global federation….

The issue of free agency, choice, with or without claims about free will, haunts the regime of scientism emerging from the New Physics, a point clearly analyzed by Kant. The idea of freedom ended up being orphaned in the emergence of marxist scientism. But that issue is the key to exposing the theoretical ideology of classical and neo-classical economics. The latter is clearly based on questions of consumer choice in economic free agents, and his contradicted by the outlandish abuse of the classic differential calculus.

Marxists tend to lose their grip over their own critique of ‘theory and ideology’:

Neo-classical economics is buttressed by an immense amount of mathematical theory justifying things as they are, but there is a stark antinomy at the core of this orgy of calculus: theories invented for physics cannot be transferred to social situations involving free agency. We can
‘luke-skywalker’ the entire death star with this antinomy in one heroic flourish, one that marxists put beyond their ‘theory’ with the theses of historical materialism. The models of neo-classical economics do not and cannot apply to reality.

A New Communism should eschew premature theories to expose the flaws in the neo-classical brand. It is thus easy to ‘luke skywalker’ the core flaw in the whole game with a one-shot demolition exposing the contradiction

at the core of modern economics: no set of differential equations constitute a theory of economic action. The ‘science’ of economics is thus exposed as a preposterous ‘damned new thing’, mathematical ideology.

Feminism A streamlined Manifesto must not exclude issues of feminism and the challenge to the family.

The Family Will neo-communism embrace the Communist Manifesto’s critique of the family?

Racism A recent movement called #BlackLivesMatter reminds us of the many parallel tracks of radical activism that a single focus can forget. We certainly won’t forget: our monofocus on the issue of communism will actually end up more comprehensive…

Our model of history shows clearly the multitasking character of historical realization, and the clearest example is:

Abolitionism Our world histories will show clearly that parallel tracks emerge on the left: the classic cases are early Munzerian Christianity, Diggers to Levelers, and most of all the abolitionists whose work arose independently of leftist marxism and generated the lead up to the Civil War.

Nuclear Proliferation/Disarmament Any serious discussion of postcapitalism must take a stand on the question of nuclear technology, nuclear energy industries, and nuclear disarmament.

Radical Ecology Attempts to backdate ecological thinking to the marxist canon are of interest, but in the final analysis, using our new model of history, the left can correct the one-sided Enlightenment perspective (next to the six or more ‘enlightenments’ of the early modern) with the clear dialectical complement: the Romantic movement, rich in resources for an ecological neo-communism.

Israel Neo-communism in the US must vigorously expose the coup d’etat of American politics by the Israeli lobbies, covert agencies, and Jewish public. The status of Israel in the wars of the Middle East must be assessed with a platform position on its gross rights violations constituting apartheid.

Non-violence A radical revolutionary movement is not required to embrace Gandhian non-violence, and should follow the standard of the

early democratic revolutions. The American Revolutionary War was not a pacifist movement, but a war of liberation.

9/11 Conspiracy The failure of the current lefts to expose the covert action behind the 9/11 false flag black op connected with a ‘deep state’ phenomenon threatens to indict them as accessories to state criminality. The whole set of issues going back to the onset of the CIA must be rigorous pursued.

Covert Agencies Modern government has been hijacked by the immense underworld of covert ops and their agents, now licensed by the state itself. This cancer must be brought into the open and rigorously controlled with the ideological cover of ‘state secularity’ and ‘top secrecy’ brought under control: the deep state must be exposed and eliminated…

A Core Draft of Our Manifesto

We have reached the stage of Powerpoint bullets for a core draft of a new manifesto, unembarrassed our codification falls short of the classic eloquence of Marx/Engels, if only it achieves a practical result. We leave the draft as is, better crude than newly dogmatic. Achieve the first stage of the abolition of private property and the result follows.

We can leave the manner of a stirring Manifesto in a virtual mode, but alert to the terror of the end times of the capital zone, in the realization of the coming steps to a new great transition. The hand is dealt. The future is open to a path beyond the era of the capitalist nightmare.

The incomplete list of propositions asserted by this can be yeasted from an ersatz list as below, to be formalized by a version of the Red Forty-eight Group (R48) Group.

The New Communism spawns a new political formation, the R48
Group, this an algebraic x for entities to be created by the Universal Class

The cultural and economic crisis of later capitalism has left an entire planetary system close to apocalypse.

We face the real question of whether not the Faustian pact with capitalism will end in species extinction. the pious sophistries of the denunciations of communism and the paeans to free market self-bankrupt

in the timely resolution of the prophetic starting point. But we should note the ambivalence of our two prophets, Marx/Engels: they saw the cogency of an interval of capitalist globalization, but they attempt via 1848 to act at once without delay to the new foundation of communism. Out delays here may prove fatal.

We must therefore take up the prophetic warnings of the dangerous future train wreck of capitalism, now present, and fulfill the injunction to foreclose on capital maniacs out of a horror novel. Are we too late? In a final swindle the capitalist powers have finessed a climate treaty that was bogus, and destined to non-passage by the truly terminal cases in the American Congress. We must point to the core issue and not succumb to social democratic illusions, our ‘market’ communism suggesting a way to do ‘new dealism’ right on the way to a full communism.

We have achieved in principle a ‘dialectical balance’ of opposites, communist with markets, communist with democratic aspects, strong authority to guard the revolution, but with an anarchist subcore. This system echoes the original ambiguity of the manifesto of Marx and Engels and can be extended to great length. An electoral path here would be ideal, but as the example of the American system shows, the ‘so-called democracy’ is so corrupted that no democracy is actually offered in order to reform the system.

But the overall project is not some utopian fantasy: it is essential a two stage process or evolution after the model of the American Revolution: a phase of rebellion against US/global imperialism and capitalism, and a foundational stage setting the axioms of a new Communism. The result is not mystical dreaming but a practical result that should have been accomplished long ago, as the era of 1848 proclaimed from the start.

Our Manifesto confronts first the climate emergency with a streamlined and minimalist version of the original vision of the year 1848. This takes from Marx and Engels the prophesied endgame of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. The rush of calamity forces the hand of the futurists of communism. The time for that great revolution, the last, is here, now or never. The bourgeoisie in scofflaw indifference to so much as a minor mediation of its destructive ecological insanity has lost its right to the social predominance of unregulated markets. From the classic Manifesto:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of

property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

With an eye to the failure of the Bolshevik episode, a New Communism might straddle of ‘end of history’ theme with a democratic revolution after the model of the American remorphed to a form of communism as democracy. The context is a global revolution against (American) imperialism next to the larger capitalist globalization, on the analog to the American rebellion against British colonialism, informed by the lessons of the failures of Bolshevism. The basic framework is that of the revolution of the early modern bringing communism to democracy, and democracy to communism.

Required is a passage a New Communism as the realization of a postcapitalist modernity. The outcome will be a globalizing version in two possible modes, as a full communism or as a transitional market neo- communism with a foundational abolition of private property, but an open question on planning/markets. If markets are socially owned, or if they are simply abolished at the end, the point is that this transitional framework can be to simply jettison the whole round of harebrained marxism, and yet able to use that and other resources as references.

The resulting political revolution moves to a global stage as a federation of socialist republics/democracies with separations of powers between the political and economic administration of state, a robust set of human rights given the subtraction of the classic liberal license as to markets. Planetary destruction in the free field of markets is not a right.

The social sphere might well set an indifference level of semi-anarchist culture at the low end with communal, agricultural and microeconomic particulars left to itself.

The New Communism should adopt a robust praxis freed from the obsession with theory that tended to stall the classic marxist legacy.

This format requires a new model of history, a new perspective on

historical materialism, a discussion of the infatuation with dialectics, and the secular equivalent of religion in the recognition of homo sapiens as superstitious ape with soul, will, ethical nature, complex consciousness, language and creative powers.

This project will deal with a superset of the working class as the Universal Class and mediate vanguardism and one party neo-bourgeois elitism with a conception of the Universal Class as the set of all classes, including all subsets of the universal set of classes, with singleton sets of individuals, each a class to himself, mediating individualism and group psychologies.

Although its trend toward the secular remains central, this is not a form of dogmatic materialism, atheism, or prejudice against the dialectic of idealism. Such a left might tip its hat to the first communists of the early modern, in the Peasant’s Revolt of Münzer. The stance of the New Communists is to realize the full program of the modern transition in a complex dialectical spectrum as the realization of a new modernity beyond capitalism.

The basis for action is praxis in a reserve against theory, the bane of the elder marxism. We can model the path of this movement as either electoral or revolutionary with a model that remorphs the classic American revolution, with its two stages, a declaration and revolution, and a transition to constitutional foundations.

Note again that the American Rebs were not subject to any requirements of theory, belief, or religion. They didn’t have to be idealists or materialists, theists or atheists. The action of revolution is not the application of theory to history, but the free agency of individuals who create economies, and who are free to replace them.

We suspect the whole apparatus of marxism is stalling any praxis at this point. Some of that legacy can be carried by the new group, and we can expect to inherit much of older cadre. The whole marxist canon is simple the Old Testament, an historical backdrop with its classic prophets, Marx and Engels. The new phase of global action needs a New Testament able to break the mechanics of frozen habit and robotic consciousness that overtakes all cultic forms of thought.

Our Manifesto is for a New Communism, and the qualification will serve to create a caesura with previous Internationales (all permutations of the Second) to recast the core paragraph we have cited from the original classic of Marx/Engels: the project of the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and capital in the creation of a new global federation of socialist republics able to rescue the world system form the runaway train of free markets in a terminal phase of social canceration.

There could be a dialectical negation of capitalism vis communism, and a further negation of communism via new third construct, neocommunism: itself a negation of both capitalist and communism… This action will pass as with Leninism via a vanguard from the Universal Class, itself a superset of the working class. This Universal Class must seek to create a global movement stirring the working classes of a whole planet: we may start with the Coltan miners of the Congo, to be positive definite…

We can leave the eloquence of a stirring Manifesto in a virtual mode to suggest the terror of the end times of the capital zone, in the realization of the coming steps to a new great transition. The hand is dealt. The future is open to a path beyond the era of the capitalist nightmare. The list of propositions asserted by this can be yeasted from an ersatz list as below, to be formalized by a version of the Red Forty-eight Group (R48) Group.

The New Communism spawns a new political formation, the R48
Group, this an algebraic x for entities to be created by the Universal Class

This formation uses a broader understanding of history beyond the economic and creates a superset of the path of marxism as a version of modernity and its revolutionary legacy, to became a floating fourth turning point, that is a new civilization created to succeed capitalism.

It seeks the electoral or revolutionary expropriation of the bourgeoisie/
capital

The result can be a form of market communism on its way to a full neo-communist system

The result to become a national/international federation, but may certainly operate as one national unit]

Needed are a position on nuclear questions (disarmament), and aa

willingness to try and control population

It must deal with a no growth economy that is able to provide a basic income an indifference level below which people can live in a hybrid non- totalitarian mode with respect to the state

Market communism would surpass social democratic illusions by the abolition of private property, at the scale of the industrial level. This would be a constitutional question.

Market communism can have forms of publicly owned by private operated transitional structures that can operate in a mediated economy of regulated industries

Market communism must resolve the old (and often bogus) market calculation debates and rescue public thought from the sophistical ideologies of mathematical neo-classical economics

Market communism can pass to a full communism based on a discovered form of realizable planning

The New Communism can allow a threshold level of small scale, petit bourgeoisie, and other residual formations to operate below a defined indifference point. Farms, communes (regional, urban, industrial, …), etc. can evade totalization in a larger system.

The New Communism will be an ecological revolution

The New Communism must examine the legacy of covert ops, the destruction of democracy by the intelligence agencies of the previous era, and any successor strictly regulated in a public forum.

The format of revolution should remorph the double phases of any political transition, e.g. the model of the American Revolution: a revolt against an established power, and a constitutional phase moving to create the needed balance of democracy and republic, with a full and explicit set of rights.

Notes

Once and Future Communism

Discussions of communism require close theoretical examination of the issues of historical theory and of economic systems. But one problem that has arisen over time is the limited character of social theories and the tendency to cast them in the mode of physics, leaving the field to reductionist scientism. The legacy of marxism suffers this tendency, as does the evolutionism of Darwin. The legacy is so classic that it is almost better to leave it as is and to proceed instead to create a superset or dialectical continuation of the original. But we can provide a new model of history, one that is not a theory, and which can also be that superset. Before we do that let us consider that a model can be as confusing as a theory and we are entitled to set them aside for the main event: the construction via praxis of postcapitalist society and economy.

We need a view of history based on ‘free agency’ and simple periodization without the attempt produce a close theory. Once we renounce grand theories they reemerge via simple chronologies as spectacle of world epochs, with a dash of evolutionism in the background: the stage of last and first men.

Is the critique of Darwinism relevant beyond distraction at a point of crisis? The right has a twin forked strategy: social Darwinism disguised behind a robust critique of darwinian fundamentalism. And this is not the same as creationist anti-science. The left should resume Marx’s instant expose of the ‘science’ of Darwin. This can be achieved easily in neutral by looking at the empirical chronology of evolution as a fact in deep time, leaving a theory of evolution, still another ‘theory’, to the future. This will allow a more robust view of the dynamics of revolution in history.

The issue of economics is beset by the way that the subject rapidly changed gears after the period of Marx toward ‘neoclassical’ or marginalist economics, and this has been insufficiently studied by students on the left. A further development was the onset of the so-called ‘calculation debate’ that has thrown the proponents of planning on the defensive. The stance of
‘market’ communism can adopt a failsafe simplification of full communism as a constitutional foundation of property returned to the Commons, whatever the status of explicit industrial corporation under that axiom. Here the Labor Theory of Value has suffered a marginalist sophistry, one that can be countered by once again setting aside theory for a descriptive analysis: a theory of value defeated the marxists, a point under debate to be sure, but a simple solution is available: restate the issue as a perspective of

praxis, not theory. That is, the working class is subject to wage theft by the action of Capital. Done, that simple.

A New Communism must deal with these issues and that requires a kind of detachment from the constant reiteration of boilerplate Marx and his somewhat dubious theories from the era of classical economics. Here again theory is a distraction. As rough historical accounts these issues are Old Testament fodder. But one must be wary of ‘theories’, and such have been the object of almost constant refutation by bourgeois ideologists. If leftists eschew ‘theory’ they can focus on the ‘theories’ of the bourgeois economists with devastating effect. The original Marx was keenly aware of the interaction of theory and ideology and the left should be wary of themselves falling in the trap. Marx’s Capital is inspirational but an incomplete train wreck that is not fully coherent. If the left would avoid the constant truck in theories and simply move to expose those of the capitalist ideologies, they would be a step ahead. Instead the left tends to regurgitate the material of the classic period unaware of the considerable amount of refutation literature that arose almost immediately.

Class struggles, German Ideologies The early Marx and Engels are almost all that is needed to recast the basis for a future communism. This was the point of the emergence of historical materialsim as a theory. It would work much better as a form of descriptive social photography, snapshots of the interaction of class, ideology, and the high/low of these interactions, without the mumbo jumbo of superstructure and base. The latter works perfectly in editorial mode, but fails as a theory due to its overly deterministic cast.

The marxist canon has a stodgy but effective set of nemeses, one of them Karl Popper whose thesis of ‘historicism’, next to Isaiah Berlin’s theses on ‘historical inevitability’, and they have made their point. We can’t safely factor out the issue of ‘free agency’ from the discussion of historical and economic systems.

It is useful to challenge the theory of historical materialism with a different model of world history. The contraction of thought to positivistic materialism and reductionism scientism in the wake of the era of the Hegel school is a notable background of the era of Marx and Engels in the 1840’s. The basic theory of Marx and Engels arising in the period The German Ideology was a guide to a profound insight into the relationship of economic

action and historical action. But as with most theories the result always falls short of the complexity of history.

We should avoid the deletion of free agency from accounts of history and economics. In this context, economic systems cease to be deterministic system, rather the constructs of free agents who are free to deconstruct them.

We will offer a new model of history based on the perception of the so-called ‘eonic’ or ‘macro’ effect. The result is not a theory, but an advisory, and an empirical construct showing a suggestive solution to the problem of historical dynamics. The result is non-dogmatic, but can help to unify thinking around a generalized timeline. The result suggests a solution to the evolution/history paradox uses ‘systems modeling’ to stand beyond materialism, idealism unifies all socio-historical categories: religion, science, politics, even art histories, gives a hint to the solution to the ‘end of history’ propaganda shows how to consider ‘modernity’ as a unified ‘transition’ is based on ideas that are commonly shared, e.g. the idea of ‘modernity’, the tendency to refer to the ‘middle ages’, the ‘axial age’, etc…

This can free marxists from the confused analyses of feudalism, and the ambiguity as to the onset of ‘capitalism’.

The whole model can be set aside and simply become a chronicle of the visible progression of rough epochs climaxing in modernity.

The new model of histor y presented later in this book uses the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’, the latter being either ‘free agency’ or, if we care to make the case, free will. Marxists seem to forget one half of their legacy, the work of the Kantian ethical socialists who stormed onto the scene during the period of the early Second Internationale. A New Communism needs to free itself from the sterile positivism of that period, mindful of the way the Kantian thematic can fall into the hands of reactionary thinkers such as Bernstein who discredited the legacy of Kant, beside the already considerable confusion over idealism.

The tide of the industrial revolution spawned the world of proletariats and Marx’s brilliant invocation of the working class was a breakthrough concept for its period but as we enter late capitalism the class structure of the societies in question has shifted. The proletariats are mostly external outsourced entities, the indigenous working class being the object of massive

attempts at social conditioning. A new left might turn the tables here with a more general conception of the Universal Class, which is really the same as the working class but more inclusive of the many subsets of the set of classes: much of the legacy is about a cliché factory bound working class. But the real spearhead of revolution has shifted now to a random mixture of many sorts, from the new kind of lumpenproletariat to the multiple factions of the petit bourgeoisie. The action of appeal should address the whole of the working class, which is the complement of the bourgeoisie. The classic canon in invoking the ‘working class’ tended to exclude an immense number of people including many who are the most probable stalwarts of revolutionary action.

A further issue is the confused legacy of ‘dialectic’. We used the term correctly above to refer to a dyadic contrast of opposites, or a debate. The curious mysticism of the dialectic inherited from Hegel (whose thinking sprang from occult and mystical sources) was later said to not straddle the social and the natural. It is perhaps a correct inference from Hegelian usage, but the original sources of dyadic/triadic logics, e.g. in the Samkhya of antiquity, proposed a universal materialism of triadic factors that encompass the cosmic totality. We discuss this in the notes to the Preface in the Appendix.

Marxism arose in the era of the onset of positivism and contracted around a brittle materialism and a reductionist view of history that has been left behind by a larger culture that has expanded globally to include a wide spectrum of cultural perspectives. The views of those proposing the scientism of the period of the Iron Cage no longer satisfy, and this negative judgment falls on the legacy of socialist thought. And it became a vehicle of darwinian ideology despite Marx’s clear warnings of the ideological character and social darwinist illusions of Darwinism.

Modernity, and the End of History What is modernity? The present generation is suffering through what could be the terminal crisis of civilization in the context of climate change, an unfolding calamity whose implications defy the axioms of modernity itself, or so it seems. But beyond that lies the reality of a civilization undermined by its own success, economic success, so-called, a success that is really a disguise for a deeper failure, along with an ideological rigidity so complete no insight into the problem is possible. The blindness to the issue of climate change is symptomatic of

this larger failure.

Postmodern Illusions In a postmodern vein many critics of modernity, from reactionary perspectives, have indicted it as a whole, but a closer look shows the crisis is not really that of modernity, but of the realization of its axioms and the subtle derailment of the original impulse. It is not hard to document the drift from democracy to empire in the American system whose appearance was such a classic early triumph of modernity. And the status and future of capitalism was directly foreseen by the successors to the French Revolution whose intimations of a last revolution ‘beyond capitalism’ was picked up by Marx and Engels whose codification is now a classic legacy, if somewhat dated now. But the point was clear: capitalism had suddenly hijacked modernity and we can see that this diagnosis is as relevant today as it was at the start. We see all the elements of class, ideology, and capitalist economics produced a cancer in the unfolding of globalization, and this charge is now rendered in grim black and white at a point where the last phase of neoliberalism is violently out of control and in denial about its own effects.

History and (R)evolution We need a new perspective on history, one that can at once clarify the issue of historical dynamics and this in the context of the various theories of evolution that have foundered in the same kind of reductionism as the marxist. Here the theory of revolution has suffered the misleading use of dialectic to explicate the revolutionary phenomenon arising in modernity. We make a dramatic shift to a new evolutionary perspective, this time starting with world history which shows a concealed developmental pattern. Marx was one of the first critics of darwinian random evolution, but later marxism adopted it dogmatically. The theory needs to be exposed as an ideology to set the left on the course to a real science of evolution. History can help. But he did not believe in ‘meta-history’ or directed historical patterns. But the evidence is clear. The question of evolutionary change has often been confronted with the idea of discontinuity (often from religious sources) while historical analysis has tended to avoid this. But the issue of revolution raises the question all over again, although here there can be confused over the dynamic involved. Leftists in the tradition of Marx have sometimes tried to use the ‘dialectic’ to create a model of this, but this raises the question of the meaning of the dialectic.

The Enigma of the Axial Age The key to the enigma is the evidence of

the Axial Age. Starting in the nineteenth century one of the most remarkable discontinuities in history began to be observed, and this was later codified by Karl Jaspers as the Axial Age. This data has all the provocative ambiguity that besets analysis with religious obsessions, but the nature of the data actually forces the issue of looking at the process of discontinuity more abstractly. The idea of discontinuity can be very treacherous, but if we see a massive impetus of changes over a short interval with no antecedent causal factor we have the grounds for a new type of explanation. In fact, the Axial Age shows us something even more remarkable: a whole spectrum of discontinuous intervals in synchronous parallel. The complexity of this phenomenon advises caution even as it forces us to consider exotic new models.

A New Model of History The Axial Age confronts us with something conventional historiography has tended to avoid and we are forced to attempt a new form of explanation to deal with the data that world history began to show for the first time in the nineteenth century as the data for a history of civilization began to emerge from archaeological research. The understanding of the Axial Age, despite the additional mystery of its parallelism, emerges as that of a step in a sequence: with the basic clues we can easily complete the analysis to discover, or suspect a larger sequence…. We move forward and backwards, and the puzzle, despite the lack of sufficient data for a full solution, shoes the obvious appearance of a sequence, with Egypt/Sumer as a first visible step, and modernity coming later. This gives us a three term sequence, and a clear, but not quite definite, prior set of steps for the sequence in the Neolithic. Once we grapple with the huge data set for this phenomenon, a generalization of the Axial Age, a kind of recognition occurs: we see at once a ‘macro’ dynamic behind continuous history, and this fulfills the definition of a kind of ‘discrete/continuous’ model, operating via a set of epochal intervals and their initializing transitions. The nature of the parallelism in the Axial Age is still unclear but the overall timing of the Axial Age falls into place and in addition shows us the clue to modernity: it is an integrated transition of epochal timing in a larger dynamic of world history. We can see why leftists were so close but unable to put their finger on the nature of what they saw as a new era of modernity, taken incorrectly as the dawn of capitalism. We can see that capitalism is one phenomenon associated with the rise of modernity, and takes off near the end of its basic
‘transition’, but the two are not the same. In fact, one reason for this is the appearance of the antithesis in parallel, the idea of (democratic) socialism/ communism.

The Modern Transition We begin to see the solution to the ‘revolution’ riddle: revolutions appear in the modern transition, which is itself a larger kind of revolution. But the latter is a comprehensive spectrum of many innovations. We have found the basis for understanding the enigma of modernity: it is a finite transition in a larger sequence and shows a termination point or ‘divide’ around 1800+: this key issue is vital for seeing the later chaotification now overtaking a whole planet…. We have found a discrete series with epochal intervals stretching ca. 3000 BCE, 600 BCE, and
1800, with around three centuries of prior transition. We see at once that the interval from 1500 to 1800 is the relevant. An at first incomprehensible property of this situation is the divide period around 1800 (plus or minus). Note the massive number of innovations of this period, over and above those of the earlier transition. This ‘divide’ point is a mysterious clue to the dynamic of modernity, and shows the analog to similar data in the Axial period. Note the parallel appearance of the American, French Revolutions, the Industrial Revolution and its associated capitalism, and just the moment after the appearance of challenges to capitalism, the revolutions of 1848, and the appearance of a dialectical complement of double futures. This situation is exactly analogous to the prior period in the wake of the Axial Age as parallel outcomes began to compete for the future. This is not a deterministic system with a set outcome. Its outcome could be called ‘dialectical’ in that two or more outcomes attempt to create or seize the future.

The Dialectic of Capitalism We must be wary of the term ‘dialectic’, in its confusions of Hegelianism, and the ambiguity of dyadic and triadic versions, but we can restrict its usage to very simple definitions to see the value of ‘antithesis generating a future beyond contrasts’. Let us a create en passant another usage here with an example. The term ‘dialectic’ is subject to many confusions, although we should try to adopt transparent usages because the idea, prior to abuse, can be useful. For example, the modern transition shows outcomes that are ‘dialectical’, which simply means that two or more outcomes emerge in potential and/or in parallel. We thus see capitalism emerging with a parallel synchronous process, e.g. the democratic revolutions evolving into socialist/communist resolutions… The dialectic should refer to such ‘counterpoint’ opposites and not indulge in mystical triads… The dialectic of dyads versus triads is hopelessly confused by marxists, and we should use only the simplest dyads until and unless we can find a better or larger understanding… We confront the appearance of an immense period of philosophy from Kant to Hegel just at the point of our divide in

a spectacular display. The idea of the dialectic arises from Hegel, passes into the materialist marxism, and begins to suffer confusions as to its real meaning. We see the creation of an enigmatic subject by Engels: dialectical materialism, a very controversial probably pseudo-scientific formulation, but one that is an echo of an ancient and similar subject, the Samkhya of India. We cannot safely resolve the issue of triads and dialectic and need to adopt safe foundational logics, e.g. the Aristotelian logic of science, for any statements of analysis, but we can see that dialectical materialism is a train wreck version of an ancient set of intuitions, most remarkable. But the inventors of this, the marxists, need to be wary of this curious subject with its mystical whiplash. We have found one safe way to proceed: we use the term ‘dialectic’ as a dyad, a contrast of opposites or counterpoints given empirically as historical facts. Taking empirically as historical description of dyads the dialectic can find a useful and safe first new draft of the brilliantly confused codification of Engels. But we must be wary: we cannot safely use
‘dialectic’ for theoretical deductions, e.g. to deduce the logic of revolution.

1848: The Prophetic Year As crude as our model is, we arrive at a spectacular result. The divide process at the end of the modern transition extends through the first generation after around 1800, and this period, with a symbolic drama altogether apt ca. the 1848 revolutions, with Marx, Engels et al in attendance (we should include the counterpoint dialectic of anarchist synchronous actors, e.g. Bakunin).

Our model tells us that the onset of socialism/communism is parallel to that of capitalism just at the divide to the modern transition and both aspects have the appearance of apparitions, i.e. appear at the last moment and tend to contradict the long early modern preparation. Capitalism begins to distort modernity, as socialism/communism attempt a ‘chase plane’ pursuit and response. Both aspects show the ominous transition from system action to free agency characteristic of our model and both aspects are liable to distortion. Capitalist distortion is obvious from start to finish. The marxist left produces a powerful corpus in response, but this factor of free agency is a warning that we are dealing with fallible agents. We might suspect the influence of positivism, which had a clear critique in the early modern, scientism, Darwinism, reductionism, and preposterously, the Hegelian dialectic. The overall result is flawed and has no correct theory of revolution…the Russian Bolshevik revolution proceeds with inadequate theories and is different in character from the revolutions of the early

modern….We see that the emergence of a ‘new kind of revolution’ in the wake of the French, American revolutions, and the spooky onset of tidal wave capitalism are part of the divide period at the end of a macro transition, and almost simultaneously our system spawns a chase plane dialectic in the various communistic (but their own complement anarchist) attempts to claim the future beyond the ‘standard outcome of modernity’ captured at the last moment by capitalist globalization.

The Ends of History The end of history debate is related to this issue of the ‘last and first men’, but has been distorted upside down to make capitalism that ‘end’. But surely the original and true meaning is that of a system to succeed the capitalist phase, and this without voiding the basic democratic outcome of the modern transition…. The model of history we have developed can easily resolve the confusion over the end of history by reminding us that the ‘ends of history’ tend to cluster in our macrosequence, and the period after that is not fully predetermined by that model. The
‘ends of history’ are simply given in the dialectic complement of capitalism and communism. Our fate depends on the resolution of that paradox, and the early innings went to the capitalist defeat of communism. But the next inning we can see is the need to deal with the catastrophe being generated by capitalism…The question of the ‘end of history’ reverts to its original form: the future as something beyond capitalism…

Floating fourth turning points We can leave the last two sections in potential, but with a new metaphor of the ‘last revolution’, the floating fourth turning point, i.e. the generation of whole cultural wholes on the scale of the macrosequence: The macro model suggests a generalization of
‘revolution’: floating fourth turning points’ (after the three known epochs in succession in the macrosequence), as cultural transformation at the level of replicating the early modern, but in a postcapitalist version…Here is the beautiful logic of our new model of history: it is an interplay of system action and free agency. We have seen three broad turning points or transitions emerging from the longer sequence from the Neolithic or before. But our free agency allows us to confront the destined decline into madness of the modern rendered a dead zone of economic insanities. Our options include a new social technology of the future become our present, a floating fourth turning point of our own free activity…It must replicate the action of greater

history itself and realize a new modern in the ear of postcapitalism.

Last and First Men A New Communism must stage a society able to cradle the future evolution of man, and this question far outstrips the current study of biological evolution. The first stage is to replace the ideological cancer of social darwinist evolutionism with a neutral evolutionary saga freed from reductionist scientism. This is a supreme challenge and instantly puts the strongest scrutiny on this and any other neo-communist project. This is a useful discipline for a movement that cannot trust itself in its critical mistrust of the immense deceptions of the capitalist era. We can leave this section incomplete and consider our notes a kind of generator for a virtual manifesto on its way to realization. Beside our single citation from the original manifesto we field a single idea behind our review of the marxist canon: the need to de-mechanize thought and recast the rich potential of the successors of 1848 for a new era of crisis. We can cite here a continuation via the text of Last and First Men.

A New Model of History: The Modern Epoch

We see the way to a new model of history as a rational account getting mislead by ‘theories’ with their liabilities. We can easily restate the basics of historical materialism in this context. We can proceed with an empirical chronology suggested by history itself, and this can help us disentangle from the ‘end of history’ propaganda that has so confused the discussion of capitalism. In the process we can adopt the challenge given by Kant in his essay on history. That classic essay is forgotten as the hidden task behind first Hegel then the proponents of historical materialism, followed by the dealers of the ‘end of history’ meme, mostly dealing in Jokers in a rigged deck. If we can provide a superior version resolving that challenge, we can reestablish the basics of marxism in another fashion. In fact, we have a century and a half of archaeological breakthrough research under our belt, which neither Hegel nor Marx had. Armed with that we can do a recursion of Kant’s assigned task, throw light on the issue of teleological, discover what Kant called ‘nature’s secret plan’ along with a demonstration of the
‘progression toward a perfect civil constitution’. Our manifesto must thus be a statement about that progression toward a better civil constitution, not yet perfect, but able to reconcile the issues of economics, democracy and communism that have a fanned curve ball for liberal ideologists.

Marxism brought into existence a debatable tendency to ma ke
‘revolution’ a matter of applied theory when in fact it should be more
like the case of the American revolution: Rebs ‘mad as heck ’ applying a
constitutional praxis to the conclusion of a rebellion. A theory is an illusion it
will master hypercomplexity. Modern economics is a series of mathematical
theories that are mostly bogus, and Marx in Capital tried to propose a rival,
a losing proposition, despite the many insights of that masterwork, also a
doorstopper. Their earlier work was more practical and all we need. We
should not compete with theories, but adopt provisional models, and leave
the burden of proof to the propagandists of Capital, that is say, the burden
of no proof and the almost chaplinesque parodies of calculus that grace the
modern economic illusion sphere.

Note that every in reality follows this approach: biologists claim to have a theory of evolution but in fact use a chronology of evolutionary history, empirically. Economists makes all sorts of claims about capitalism in theory but a close look at any textbook shows that all those graphs are just bits of model construction. No general theory exists (because of complexity and free agency). So what we are doing is being honest about simply applying an empirical chronology. There we see that economic systems are dwarfed by the larger systems at work. That is good: because that means that revolutionary change is possible: we can decide to change an economic system.

A program of action is a recipe based on the choices of free agents. No theory is required: it is a constructivist procedure: the constitution of a civil new republic as a political economy. This small difference between a theory, a model and a recipe or praxis makes all the difference and is the proper subject matter of a manifesto. We can propose a simple model of history that will also throw light on the issue of evolution. A model is not a theory. Even so it might seem itself theoretical. If the material is too arcane we can set it aside. It is an attempt at explanation which is not a theory. We do not propose applying a theory about history to a revolutionary version of ‘applied sociology’. Theories of social systems always fail, and historical materialism is no exception. But Marx/Engels nearly got it right with a model of progressive epochs…feudalism, capitalism…But this is another theory. We can adopt a related but simpler approach: world history shows the evidence of a progression of successive epochs, the most recent being modernity. We see an epoch starting around 3300/3000 BCE in Sumer and Egypt then the epoch of the Axial Age starting around 900/600 BCE the

modern epoch starting around 1500/1800

These epochs clearly show the way to resolving Kant’s challenge, and show a progression toward better civil constitutions. We suspect this progression starts far earlier, but can’t be sure. We are on the verge of a monster theory, but without more data we can’t produce one, so we use an incomplete model of world epochs. We thus consider how to proceed with a simple model of three epochs, the third of which was getting under way as Marx/Engels produced their quite epochal Manifesto. Instead of theory we proceed with some simple observations and hunches: history is structured, has a directional aspect, isn’t by inspection isn’t determined by economics, shows ‘evolving systems’ in many varieties developing under a pattern of feedback, etc… Most of all we suspect we are seeing a teleological system in action. Now we know why theories are failures: they are mostly ‘causal’ constructs and can’t reckon directionality. We won’t produce a theory of teleology, but our model will reflect it empirically. We are out of the morass that sank so many historical theories.

Seeing the period 1500/1800 as the interval of epochal transition is the master clue, in reality a cogent case, to what Marx/Engels were trying to put their finger on.

So the issue is not the epoch of communism to replace capitalism replacing feudalism, but the blend of capitalism (or the Industrial Revolution) and communism to cap the realization of modernity and its trend toward democracy. The confusion arose perhaps because of the way figures like Adam Smith misgeneralized the action of free markets with the ethical transvaluation based self-interest turned into a theory about history and economics. There may be some empirical truth to his insights, but as a theory they fail.

The epoch in question is modernity: how we realize it depends on our application of its core elements of innovation: democracy, freedom, market capitalism, socialism, etc… The fate of Rome in the prior epoch of the Axial Age shows us how badly free agency can screw up the potential of historical realization. The result was so a kilter that a chase plane rescue operation emerged to try and recompute the epochal downfield, Christianity. We call this a ‘floating fourth turning point’, or an attempt to restart an epoch, a bit grandiose, but a way to generalize the idea of ‘revolution’, and to see how

they can fail around their inherent limits.

This is what a revolution must aspire to: a new culture beyond a new economy, based on the corrected elements of epochal transition. Jargon, jargon, but our point here is clear: our epoch is modernity with a distorted economic outcome requiring a floating fourth turning point. That’s enough: you can skip the rest here and move to the next section. I recommend my model of history, but one can proceed without it.

Theories, Models, Ideologies

Having used the term ‘dialectic’ we will be wary of its use: it is a fallacy emerging from Hegel that a dialectical dynamic operates in history. There may be some finesse that can rescue the idea, but our approach is different, and sometimes comes close, but we should be wary of mixed modes. Beside this is the legacy of historical materialism with its concepts of economic determinations in history. One thing seems suspiciously the case: theories are always wrong, and one reason is the complexity of the subject matter, and another the misuse of causality after the fashion of physics, that is the fallacy of scientism. Theories of history are clearly at fault here. What is the domain of discourse? Because history is connected to evolution, the answer is, everything since the big bang! A system far too complex for a theory. We can demonstrate without much trouble, in defiance of conventional wisdom that the theory of Darwin is ‘still another false theory’. Marx had a funny work around here, evident in the Manifesto: a thesis of the progression of epochs, from feudalism to capitalism to communism. But while this works descriptively it is still another failed theory. Feudalism and capitalism are different categories; it might be argued. And feudalism occurs intermittently in ancient history, consider the dark ages before archaic Greece.

How proceed? Our model adopts an empirical approach, and asks if we can detect large scale patterns in history. In fact, we can. Or else we can simply ask if history shows evidence of a dynamic. The two questions converge on the data in the affirmative as if we were attempt to decode history by asking if it shows a cyclical pattern. We can find that! But we can only see it over a short range, which prevents the creation of a theory. Next to this we must grand the factor of free agency in the execution of history. No determinate differential equation will work here. And it is. But we are

close to creating a viable path: to best of our knowledge history shows a progression of epochs, and these transcend sub-distinctions of economic history, technological history, and these epochs are fuzzy outlines not contradicted by the factor of free agency. And these epochs appear clearly to show a transitional phase at their onset filled with innovations. We arrive at a framework to proceed: modernity is a phase in the onset of a new epoch, and shows the massive flux of innovations typical of epochal transitions, and this includes the crystallization of that distinct economic/technological complex set of innovations called ‘capitalism’ (granting that this is relative, capitalism being definably present throughout history as truck and barter).

This is very useful: there is no capitalist epoch. Economic systems do not determine the course of history. The whole game is executed by free agents, and the capitalist system was created by free agents who can replace that as free agents with a better system. Capitalism is a massive mega- innovation of the modern epoch. So why would we want to change it, isn’t it canonically epochal? We see one reason for the stubborn dogma of capitalist fundamentalist axioms. The answer is simple: capitalism is not a system with a theory, but an series of ad hoc innovations, one of which is the idea of socialism/communism which emerged in tandem and which drives the system to realize still other innovations, ideas of freedom, democracy, just social systems, etc…We see that the epochal transition entered a new epoch with its emergent format still incomplete for precisely the reason such as Marx/Engels asserted: contrary tendencies must work themselves out, and a finalized ‘modern’ format could only emerge in the wake of globalization and some degree of development fueled by capitalism.

We the power of this kind of descriptive historical model: we are certainly on the verge of a massive new dose of ‘theory’, but in fact are stopped by incomplete data! We can simply use the history of free agents in rough epochs as a chronology of the development of civilization. We suspect, we note in passing, that our progression of epochs reaches back to the Neolithic or before.

What about the question of classes, and the history of classes struggles? That translates easily into our framework: we see the rough egality of Paleolithic man yield to the onset of class structures in the Neolithic and the subsequent eras of the State. The latter is especially evident in the epoch beginning with the classic phases of Sumer and Egypt. The contradictory

elements of freedom in the state (the state was however ambiguous a positive innovation of that epoch) gestates with its opposite, freedom from the state, with the former too frequently winning out throughout that era. But with dramatic precision we see the pole of ‘freedom from the State’ emerge with the birth of democracy in the Axial epoch.

So the thematic of the history of class struggle gets an instant foundation in our model. The point is the obvious issue of equality realization as class struggle. Our system shows this is a larger process of induction. No other model can suggest this: that themes of freedom, and equality are generated in the system’s core dynamics. That was a confusion of many economic interpretations of history, e. g. that slavery was part of an economic inevitability. But at no point in the innovation structure of our epochs do we see an induction of slavery in some teleological sense. Slavery is a distortion of freedom in the State by free agents attempting to apply a proto-capitalist logic to the application of the extraction of surplus value. A distortion of freedom logic. This makes ‘slavery’ a disease of civilization. Note that the term capitalism is so vague we no theory could be consistent. It is a complex that must be described in chronological accounts. And we should note how easily free agents can distort transitional innovations: compare the account of the innovations of Adam Smith with the distorted muddle of dystopian
‘market ideology’ that arises in his wake.

We have all the elements for a highly flexible interpretative model approach to historical that places the onset of communism inside the overlapping revolutionary/democratic innovations and the capitalist economic innovation nexus. We can even bring in the banished concept of
‘dialectic’ by noting that our disillusion with theories is borne out by the facts: our ‘system’ is perfectly compatible with multiple outcomes in parallel attempting to reconcile complex counterpoints: democracy and economy. Since ‘dialectic’ is another failed theory, we should call it something else, and be clear our usage is simply descriptive. In such a system emergent parallels will tend to compete for the future. Here the ‘theory’ of revolution is replaced with an empirical perspective: the sudden appearance of the phenomenon of ‘revolution’ in the early modern falls like ripe fruit into the category of ‘epochal innovations’.

That gives us a glimpse of a new model of history, and in the process it is also a corrective on our ideas of evolution, an issue better explored in

appendix. It allows an account of the emergence of freedom, and is best placed insider the Kantian Question about history. This is very controversial for many, but we should note that ‘evolution’ is so often confused with darwinian ‘random emergence by natural selection’ that it is hard to see its real meaning, which should be equivalent to ‘development’. Biologists resist this because it makes ‘evolution’ teleological, but the attempt to banish teleology in the name of physics has backfired with ‘evolution’. Our model shows directionality in history as a generalization of teleology: we can see that epochs in succession shows direction. We may not be able to fully analyze this because teleology is another failed theory, rather a descriptive tendency, and also because the factor of ‘free agency’ is required to complete the setting of direction and may fail in this, or decide to do something else. Evolution as directed development makes sense out of all the nonsense suffered by biologists in the attempt to make a science of life. It is resisted among reasons because teleology is mysterious and not subject so far to complete scientific accounts. So the drama of endless failed theories will continue. We must in the end invoke what physicists themselves suspect, a kind of Goldilocks principle that makes the question of evolutionary directionality implicit from the start. We should be mindful or our strategy, which stands wary of theories and simply observe a system of epochal transitions, unsure as we are embedded in its middles that we know its endpoint. Surely this question answers itself: the ‘end of history’ meme hints that as freedom is realized man steps out of the historical of epochal progressions into a free future of his own creation, the clichés here suddenly work!

DeMoCrATiC MArkeT Neo-CoMMuNisM
At a time of developing climate catastrophe it is important to bring to the fore the challenge of revolutionary change. There is no reason why this can’t be followed with an electoral path, but the implications are and remain that of constitutional renewal. This approach, even as it can and should inform mainstream activist logic working on issue initiatives and electoral options, is a discipline of thinking on problems holistically, involving social, economic, constitutional and political perspectives in the context of a totalitarian capitalist regime, with global domination as its keynote. Our perspective is thus both nationalistic and internationalist. The times require the dangerous passage of revolutionary regime change, even if this provokes an apparently unrealistic goal, and this must at least be contemplated as a potential option.

The current election of Trump suggests the american system has entered the kind of reactionary deadlock that has too often cursed its history, witness the period leading up to the american civil war. The reign of climate deniers coming the fore simply amplifies an already disastrous situation, created by the american ‘rogue state’ with its imperialist wars fueled by the

military-industrial complex, its deep state and uncontrolled covert agencies showing strong evidence of false-flag dark ops, next to a corrupt political system beholden to capital interests. The developing crisis of climate change confronting a political system unable to respond shows a system entering the critical zone. The current system is not stable and we need to consider the dangers in the situation we face. If nothing else the revolutionary option is failsafe logic, the ready fire-extinguisher. But ‘if nothing else’ is not enough as the failure of the powers of be calls for intervention. It is also possible the imputation of revolutionary change can lead to preemptive change on the part of the established regime.

It is important to consider the revolutionary option and to declare in advance what the aims of revolution should be. This is nothing less thatn what the founders of the american system suggested might be needed, ‘ a republic if you can keep it’. Democracies emerged in revolutionary periods of turbulence and the founding fathers anticipated the future of this reality. Here we will propose a hybrid of democratic and socialist models in the form of what we call ‘democratic market neo-communism’.

Here the legacy of marxism is both the best and the worst of possibilities. The public will not accept a canon of marxism in its classic form, although this could change. It remains an crucial resource taken historically. We can list some issues that will force a caesura from the marxist legacy:

the bolshevik/stalinist outcome of the Russian revolution the limits of classical economics used by Marx
the failure to consider neo-classical economics and its ideology

exclusive emphasis on the working class rather than the ‘universal class’

the confusions of historical materialism and its stages of production theory

The key problem is that of theories of highly non-linear complexities that require empirical approximations. We will suggest a different historical framework in a short set of notes to the main section. The core of marxist thinking can be adapted to our loose historical model. The reader is ready to go in five minutes with this substitute for theory using

a simple chronology of epochs. We must displace the marxist core to the status of Old Testament to a New Testament restating a key set of ideas, and here the idea of communism, recast as neo-communism, is the best candidate if the proposal can sever its link to bolshevism, and work in the context of democratic logic. The older legacies remain important
as reference sources, but we need a streamlined restatement that has divorced itself from stalinist idiocy.

We have proposed therefore a new ultra simple non-theoretical perspective on world history and a return to the era of the emergence of communism in the era of early Marx/Engels. We can focus on their classic Manifesto. But we must restate the issues in a new way and we can’t cut and past marxist boilerplate as a procedure. We propose a simple nexus of ideas, and this centers around what we can democratic market neo-communism.

We can cite the material on this from Toward a New Communist Manifesto (pdf, Amazon), and Last and First Men, as a companion discussion, and this can serve as the bare starting point for a balanced version of a postcapitalist system. We should re-emphasize the need for an ecological communism and this requires a new view of history and culture, one easily adapted to our different take on world history.

This essay is short, a gesture toward a longer discussion, and a way to jolt thinking into a dialectic on the revolutionary prospect. We have clipped the material to outline form to jumpstart a new line of thinking about the crisis we face. We must act now, within a time frame of less than a decade to be ready for what we face.

Democratic Market neo-communism: a short sketch…

We will with the core idea of the classic Manifesto of Marx and Engels:

…The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few. In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property… From the Communist Manifesto

Communism/socialism has many confused representations, ours will

attempta to create a very broad blueprint that reconciles many opposites:

The details will be left out as we combine two ideas: the abolition of private property with a system deliberately balancing a set of opposites: planning, markets, top down control, bottom up semi-anarchist autonomy…Many discussions of communism confuse the foundational logic of expropriation with the creation of a particular economic system. But the two issues are not the same: a communist system founded in a constitutional starting point can then proceed to construct an economic system to match. There is no inherent reason why a communist system can’t adopt experimental hybrid in a transition to a new kind of neo-communist economic system. Our references imply a discussion of the US system and yet invokes a transnational system.

1. step one is the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, at the high end. We leave a lower threshold to semi-autonomy, subject to regulation. Property, i.e. industrial macro projects, belong to the Commons. All natural resources belong to the Commons. This distinction is important because the control of economic resources by a one-party state is highly undesirable: a separation of powers requires a set of economic bodies, legal and practical, to regulate economic issues.

2. the executive power consists of a strong state that guards the revolution, protects the Commons, but which otherwise has limited powers which are delegated to different branches of government. This sector with be a one party or zero party state, republican with a president and set of guardians, and an elected president. This branch of government requires additional revolutionary challenges to the vices and excesses of authoritarian governments. This requires a global transnationalism in the midst of a communist nationalism, a commitment to a new globalization of states beyond imperialism, robust versions of free trade that are liberated from the capitalist brands of exploitation and out-sourced working classes, and the abolition and reconstitution of all covert agencies and their false-flag conspiracies. The market sector must be divorced completely from military capitalism. The ‘deep state’ must be exposed, neutralized and replaced wih an open system with established laws as to surveillance, ideological mind control, and political deceptions.

3. a congress (and/or Senate) and a set of courts based on multiparty democracy that is completely free of big money of any kind. It will be

meritocratic, with short elections, state sponsored advertising on an equal basis, etc…: creating a reformed democracy given the grotesque distortions of the american example. This combination of one-party and multi-party systems is a unique innovation requiring careful consideration of its draft status in the realization of a open society in the context of a superset with strong but limited authority.

4. a set of economic institutions and courts to match will mediate the issues of development projects, allocations, planning…the central state will not be allowed to muddle through this sector which operates with a separation of powers. This set of legal bodies must include an ecological court mediating the economic impacts of industrial activity. This overall framework will mediate three sectors of the macroeconomy:

5. the resulting macro economy will be a hybrid of state corporations and entrepreneurial startups created by individuals with licenses to operate with ecological resources.

6. there is a lower threshold below which a high degree of autonomy is left to balance the anarchist pole of the equation. This sector can show many combinations of small-economy/communes/farms/NGO’s etc…

7. the system must have strong authority next to a democratic core with rights and liberties and a populist program that deals with labor, education, medicine ( these probably free), housing, employment in populist emphases, and move beyond the sterile anti-liberalism of earlier communists.

This system requires many additional details but our snapshot is an attempt to generate a way to break old habits to think in a new way. As the text of Toward a New Communist Manifesto are aware, we have spoken in terms of the universal class rather than the working class. The universal classis the class of all classes and enforces the idea of the equality of all in a common class. A focus on the working class is entirely appropriate in this context and can be brought to the fore as appropriate.

We need a new perspective on history and a rough outline of the context of revolutionary neo-communism: communism is an innovation arising in the wake of the french revolution (in fact its primordial birth was in the early modern reformation, if not the ancient greek utopians). Our model of history is a simple ‘narrattive’ of epochs in a chronology of civilizations.

Economic systems exist inside and influence but do not fully determine these cultural complexes.

Our framework begins with the crisis of climate change. Homo sapiens is a highly destructive species tending to the destruction of all environments in his wake. The modern industrial system has both revolutionized development and handed the curse of environmental scofflaw destruction to this species man. Unrestricted free markets are an emerging calamity.

1. The Crisis of Climate

1.1. The world at two degrees: the crisis of climate forces the issue of regime change: the need for an ecological communism..

2. The failure of capitalism: the failure of capitalism to deal with its generation of climate calamity shows that self-regulating markets are a myth

3. The classic formulations of marxism are entirely apt but we must restate/update the issues and disengage from the legacies of bolshevism, etc… We tend to eschew theories in favor of empirical histories and practical metaprogamming: praxis. There is no simple solution to the problems of economic, historical and evolutionary theories and we need to operate with a set of experimental procedures. Our historical perspective allows a
‘dialectic of teleological judgment’ in the estimation of history.

4. We must state in advance what system we propose as a successor to capitalist dominated politics: we can derive the idea of the Commons from a categorical imperative in a Kantian republic of ends. We can propose post- capitalism as a crisis intervention in a catastrophe and ideological hypnosis, and the action of free agents able to refound a new economic order on the basis of a new set of values. We can cite in passing the marxist theory of the stages of production leading from the feudal to the communist stage, but our framework is larger than this classic and brittle theory: we consider instead the action of freely creating a new form of economy to deal with crisis.

5. We must both transcend and fulfill the liberal tradition, that is, the result must have a democratic core. The ‘end of history’ debate was bogus but had a point: the progression of epochs in history shows a definite process beyond mechanics toward the realization of freedom, thence democracy.

The goal of postcapitalist logic must be to establish a true democracy free of the domination of capital powers. Democracy is more than the rights of capital and is founded in the shared ecology of the Commons.

2. History and Evolution

2.1 The marxist theory of historical materialism is a teleological theory of history and puts excessive emphasis on economic determinism. We can propose an empirical outline of world history as a substitute and create a chronology of history since the Neolithic with an extension to the evolutionary emergence of man. In the process we can refound Marx’s early objections to darwinism. Our view of history can point to a useful sketch of a path to a real evolutionary theory even as it remains agnostic as to theory and yet aware of the fact of evolution. This approach can free thinking fromthe social darwinist curse that has used evolutionary darwinism for social darwinist exploitations and class warfare.

Our new model of history will automatically resolve this issue with a lightweight alternative to darwinian pseudo-science.

2.2 We see world history as a progression of epochs (we can also propose a very specific model of historical evolution to highlight this), of which modernity is the most recent: we see a transition to a new epoch, and the age period that follows. This can help to create a framework of the secular in a new and broader sense and free debates from materialism/idelaism dead ends. In the modern case we see the early modern and its immense generation of innovations, with a possible epxlanation, and a debriefing of Eurocentric questions. This is followed by the onset of a new age period in the nineteenth century. This analysis has a remarkable property: the end of the transitional period around 1800 shows a kind of divide as the character of the historical dynamic changes. We need no hard conclusions about this but it is significant that to a long view capitalism and communism emerge together. It was clear from the start that a successor to capitalism would move in parallel and then overtake the chaotic economic system at the starting point. It is no accident that Marx and Engels appear at this point with a proposal for the new era of economic modernity.

2.3 The basic outline clearly delineates a immense spectrum of emergent properties from the Reformation to the Enlightenment. The sudden appearance of so many innovation near the divide point is not accident. We

see that revolution in the early modern is a strong element in the change of epochs, but we can also see that revolution in the post-divide period will have a different character: the early modern shows a dynamical spontaneity to revolution, while the wake after the divide will require explicit free agency, a point instinctively understood by Marx/Engels who tried to create explicit protocols of revolution, a very difficult task, but one realizable by careful analysis of the steps to a revolutionary transformation. Ironically, however,
‘revolutions of free agency’ have a higher degree of freedom than dynamical revolutions (which show their historically chaotic character). This elusive set of insights can be taken as reference to our historical model. The point for us here is very simple: we must not apply theories to social constructions. Instead as free agents we must apply praxis, or practical recipes of ‘how to’ in order to create in freedom a constitutional construct. Our model, we should note, is designed to allow ‘theories’ only for the past looking backward: the free agent never sees dynamics in the present. This strange model is hard to understand and isn’t needed to proceed save to note that we dare not wait for a system to evolve to a new state. Our action as free agents is based on an analysis of the failure of capitalism and the need as free agents to create a new successor.

2.4 As noted the industrial revolution and capitalism emerge very rapidly near the divide point of the modern transition. In tandem emerges a series of chase plane successors and this are crisis vehicles for a system that is unstable on its way to globalization. Within a mere two centuries we can already see that capitalism is likely to destroy planetary civilization without intervention.

2.5 The year 1848 is in many ways symbolic as the starting point of a new era of world history: its classics revolutions were the first to respond to the emerging dilemma of capitalism and show the first appearance of socialist alternatives. This prophetic moment sets the tone for the new world of bourgeois society as an unstable first stage of modernity.

3. Democratic Market Neo-communism

3.1 The issue of capitalism is beset with an immense amount of sophistical pseudo-science and the twin confusions of classical and neo-classical economics have confused all parties that they don’t know what they are

doing. Our historical model allows us to contain this confusion with a simple strategy: no economic model using the calculus of differential equations can be valid for human society because the element of free agency distorts any causal line of outcome. This technicality is decisive and allows us to escape the completely misleading implications of fake economic theories which ape the methods of physics in a preposterous fantasy. There is only one way to deal with economies: apply axioms as free agents to produce constructs to be evaluated in practice. That’s the bottom line. The attempts to found capitalism in theory is thus misleading. The reality we see now is the danger of unrestricted free markets and the severe threat of human extinction in a system out of control.

3.2 The question of markets is very tricky nonetheless and the early marxists were not prepared for the so-called economic calculation debate. But that debate seems less cogent now. With no solid economic theory no claims for the inevitability of markets can retain their validity as dogma. The left soon produced a series answers, here which in turn have been criticized, and now in the period of computational machines and artificial intelligence the planning at any level of economies is forseeable. Overall the fact remains that planning and market socialisms look as though they had been shown up in practice by a superior capitalism of markets. For a generation after the era of bolshevism that seemed convincing but the reality check since induced shows that while socialist economies may be inefficient capitalism is going to be fatal. We MUST asap find a postcapitalist set of alternatives. In any case our framework allows a transitional or else permanent phase where markets exist inside a communist framework. This is not the same as ‘market socialism’ with its liabilities and many debates.

We need a functional system that can allows survival in a climate catastrophe. The experience of bolshevism was misleading and isn’t really a demonstration of anything, but in a crisis it shows that botched planning is still a viable economic possibility. We can do much better than that. We must start from scratch and find a new way to do economics, with simple praxis (or what Popper called piecemeal social engineering) as the bottom line. We design a socialist system to satisfy certain social, ethical, and human requirements. Alienation in a frankenstein created by us is the obsolete muddle of capitalism. We found economics in the values of equality, populist economics rights, and a stance prepared on issues like basic income, AI and the evolution of labor forces, cooperatives, unions, etc… Our approach is

not completely beyond markets in any case, so this sophistical debate over planning is out of date. We respond that it is madness to dogmatize about the efficiency of markets if they decimate the Amazon to produce hamburger mania in couch potatoes in the american television culture. The notion of the end of history decreeing the inevitablity of market sis craziness. The whole debate needs to be torn up as we start from scratch. The second world war shows that planned economies can be constructed in a manner of months if circumstances demand it.

3.3 We have considered then a hybrid we call democratic market neo- communism, described in the endnote. We envision a three sector system with both planning, markets and semi-anarchist/autonomous sectors, a carefully balanced set of opposites

3.4 Let us envision, with the question of revolution as a sword of Damocles, a peaceful electoral transition to the new system envisioned, unrealistic or not. The factor of revolution will not go away and is the critically dangerous transition, one that must produce some form of democracy. The failure of the Russian Revolution here was clear, but it was in many ways the result of Tsarist social mechanics with no experience of democracy and the classic Civil War whose outcome induce totalitarian mania from which the revolution could not recover. But the American revolution shows the correct set of stages: an imperial revolt, and then a constitutional phase. The latter is the point at which democracy must be founded in the context of the democratization of private property in the Commons. No democracy is possible in a system of plunder where commons resources are privatized by predatory capitalist powers (so-called primitive accumulation). In a communist system with many likely antagonists a balanced system of strong authority must guard the revolution, but it must be matched with a strong set of individual rights, and economic populist must be the foundation for a new socially broadened form of democracy that is more than voting for a few neoliberal posters, etc..

3.5 Last and First Men: the transition to postcapitalism is an operation on an immense scale and invokes the level of evolution itself…We must bring our perspective to the level of terraforming, ecological Gaian perspectives, and a secular equivalent of religion. We can adjourn this discussion to the materials in Last and First Men, Out of Revolution, The Crisis of Modernity. (Amazon, web pdf )… The blog Darwiniana has many discussions here, and

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s