The left needs to be ready for the ‘revolutionary moment’ with a new platform and framework. Trotsky belongs to the past along with Lenin, what to say of Stalin. In fact the whole marxist legacy is flawed and leads invariably to failure. If a revolutionary moment is coming in France it needs to evade what happened in 1968: the dead hand of marxist orthodoxy and revolutionism generating a fierce refusal from the right and/or center foreseeing, not incorrectly, the crypto-stalinism of the average lefts. The left has to get smart in a hurry and do some homework and stop drooling over marxist shibboleths.
We are a generation past 1989 and don’t have to mouth marxist boilerplate or bolshevik nostalgia rants.
The great confusion of marxism was its inducement to pronounce slogans about socialism/communism and then not specify either the revolutionary path or the nature of the system to come: a construction of what you intend by the terms and a reasoned and failsafed revolutionary transition guarded against Leninist idiocy and stalinist interlopers. The left still, STILL, hasn’t grasped that bolshevism failed. If you use old slogans the public won’t go along with you anymore.
We have created a set of tools to compute what system can actually be…(neo-) communism: the issues of expropriation, creation of a Commons, with legal and constitutional foundations, analysis of three/four term social systems ( a lot of nonsense has been written about triads/tetrads, they are simply a way to deal with systems more complex than dyad two term collision systems): a planned sector, a socialist market sector and a lower ‘indifference’/semi-anarchist sector, next to a weighted system of checks and balances with a parliamentary system, a presidential system, a new system of courts (ecological, economic…), an ecological socialist background, and both a ‘communism in one country’ and a new international. That’s a lot, a LOT, of work, none of which is visible on the left which thinks that if they pronounce the term ‘socialism’ the magic of the Great Marx’s (stupid) stages of production theory will lead them via wand waving to the great result seen in visionary bliss by the great prophet. It won’t and never has. As against that a simple framework like the above has every chance of succeeding because it is simple and practical, open to revision, has legal/constitutional foundations, failsafes, remorphs known factors instead of pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and replaces ‘state capitalism’ with a Commons, very different, and isn’t confused about markets: a communist market based on licensed resources from the commons and run by socialist entrepreneurs has every chance of bypassing the dead system state economic systems that so dreadfully took the slot of marxist daydreaming.
Although the american revolution had its bourgeois revolution moment it actually succeeded on its own terms and was constructed by ordinary men who did not confuse themselves in bad theories of history, no theories at all. It is probably true to say that anyone who imbibes the theories of Marx is so confused he could never craft a revolution successfully. Reread that and be ready at the battle of the idiots where the devotees of the Marx religion begin their sentimental drooling….
Some of the problems with marxism:
- historical materialism is a failed theory….the debate over idealism versus materialism goes nowhere
- stages of production theory doesn’t work, the epochs of economic history are obsolete…
- dialectical materialism is a hopeless case, set it aside and use standard logic, debate logic, dyads, concrete three term systems (no Hegel please)
- the economic analysis of history is too reductionist, a broader cultural view is needed
- markets are capitalist systems, or are they? it is possible to have communist markets based on a Commons with licensed resources which in parallel with a planning sector can mimic and then surpass raw market capitalism…
- The left lost, then won, then lost the ‘calculation’ debate: solution, our idea of market communism and new ideas of planning. In an age of AI and computers the planning issue can probably be solved in part….
- revolutions without blueprints of what is to happen
- bolshevik lunacy (in part due to the civil war) that started the path to communism with an especially vicious secret police….: the bolsheviks invented (or did queen elizabeth 1) invented the runaway covert agency cancer soon spreading to the american sphere…
- …failure to see the dyadic nature of communism/liberalism and the need to make them a triad (by putting them together in two pieces functioning as one): liberalism must be a communism and communism a liberalism (democracy, rights, anarchism/control…)
- safeguarding what Marx got right but restating it in new language and giving up the terms that fetishize ‘Marx’: ‘marxism’, marxist…
- Marx’s empirical discussions are often useful as are his idea of class etc. But in every case he makes his ideas a theory: the working class empiricism is invaluable but then class struggle led by the proletariat is the dynamic of history…Not so, another failed theory of history. Don’t try to create a science of history, every attempt will fail
- Create a saga or historical narrative of Marx up to 1848 and free students of his complex books. DO NOT inflict that mess Das Capital on anyone, use it as a door stop. That book has confused everyone, problably including Harvey…The Manifesto is all that is needed.
- The theory of surplus value probably joins the list of failed theories: the issue taken empirically is clear enough, stick to that…
- There is more but this could be enough to shatter marxist/leftist dogma, and force students to think beyond chapter and verse thinking with cliches of marxism….
Warning: our DMNC model is itself incomplete: it is a tool to think in blocks and needs further detail but its triadic (and tetradic, etc…) logic forces the analysis in advance of a realizable complex system, potential contradictions, e.g. planning versus markets, anarchism versus the state, one party systems AND multiparty systems, economic rights and natural ecological ‘rights’ , etc….The problems escalate: you wouldn’t want the next stalin to solve them.
In advance please, and on paper….
Note: It is probably a mistake to bring in the idea of ‘triads’, still another theory pitfall/morass. But it is useful to replace the confusion of the dialectic with a distinction of dyads and triads in the context of n-term systems, and then forget all of it, including dialectical materialism. N-term systems can be grounded in nature; o level substrate???, 1 level corpuscles, two level nuclei?, three level atoms, four level ‘objects’ (J.G.Bennett does the whole spiel, with dubious results) and then five level systems at the threshold of life…Please don’t do anything with this save as an antibody for the truly atrocious dialectical materialism, but at least hope a real systems of n-term systems might be possible. The point here is clear: FIRST master physics before doing anything with ‘dialectics’….Enough with the marxist dialectic, forget it…
But will anyone listen? Marxists with their ‘dialectics’ are like a child with his toy dump truck… They won’t lightly give it all up. Put it in perspective: man cannot as yet think in triads in the deepest sense, and yet every generation since the ur-stage of sapiens has ‘rediscovered’ a glimpse of meta logic. So we must suggest discipline, not expect that we will succeed about mystic logics but hope enough sane men are present to execute a logically sane revolution.
We have two little manifestos with our DMNC model
The statement by the founding programmatic statement which was adopted at its founding conference could indicate that France is on the brink of a pre-revolutionary crisis. I saw that statement on…