The Red Forty-eight Group is an abstract model of a new leftist movement that is postmarxist but socialist/neo-communist. It challenges marxist theories but can avail itself of much of the marxist corpus, if only as history or saga. The left must divorce itself from Marx and Bolshevism and not get into the rut of defending those legacies. It is hopeless to expect the public to become convinced by the obsessive defenses of the stale legacy given the massive evidence of the bolshevik era. Who needs it? And who needs Marx’s ponderous theories and texts? Wikipedia length summaries are enough if a new canon will focus on constructivist postcapitalism: we have a model in our ‘green democratic market neo-communism’, an ecological socialism with a new politics based on a Commons and a new form of neo-communist market economy. Marxism was malformed from the start in the way Marx became an icon beyond question and beyond critique. But his theories have in every case misled those who had the opportunity to realize postcapitalist system. The reason is the way world history is conceived as economic epochs in succession with ‘communism’, never defined, to follow capitalism. It can’t work that way: free agents must define a system and construct it, by revolution if necessary. History won’t provide answer. We have carefully critiqued this marxist model which confuses all revolutionaries/reformers. Many have thought socialism dead. But now a generation after 1989 the resurgence of capitalism as neo-liberalism has reached its own endpoint and we can see that capitalism unchecked will destroy a planet. Capitalists are incapable of responding to the calamity of climate change and have destroyed democracy in the rampant resurgence of inequality. But the answer, which can be at worst social democracy prior to expropriation and at best some form of neo-communism in the wake of expropriation, requires specific blueprints of what is intended. The fiasco of bolshevism springs from the unspecified character of what was prophesied as the result slid into an ad hoc leninism followed by stalinism. At no point was any kind of reasonable definition given as the whole thing slid into covert agency psycopathy. The left must renounce that history and tell the public clearly what they intend and make the offer attractive enough to attract a public still confused by bourgeois ‘democracy’: the result must be a new democratic politics but with a solid foundation in a Commons, far from the failure of ‘state capitalism’. It must be based on expropriation turned into a Commons as a constitutional framework, a new type of market economy in the context of parallel planning, a semi-anarchist low level, an ecological vision based on an ecological court system, guarantees of economic rights and a robust mix of economic populist initiatives: free education, medical care, guaranteed employment solutions to housing crises, legal rights, and a new revolutionary house cleaning of postmachivellian covert agencies, and the replacement of imperialism/militarism/arms industries with a new international. But this system must be able to survive as ‘socialism in one country’ and can easily do so because its combined market and planned sectors constitute a communism that looks like liberalism and a liberalism that looks like ommunism, carefully qualified as neo-communism. This kind of system can interact in its market sector (which is based on licensed resources for a Commons) with an international system still capitalist externality, careful to forestall capital warfare with strategies that beside many other factors appear to the outside as a market liberalism. It cannot be smeared with charges of tyrannical socialism because it is a remorphed liberalism itself and will draw the older liberalisms into its now highly attractive orbit with robust economics and democratic rights in the context of a strong communist axioms as the constitutional authority in the background.
One has to wonder as the saying goes ‘what marxists and bolsheviks were thinking’ as the game plan turned the issues into the impossibly complex and fallacious marxist theory nexus and then proceeded to revolutionary reconstruction with no ground plan in advance.