Source: Lost opportunity…
We have repeatedly suggested that the stance of the left has shifted now: Marx in his era was very reluctant to get specific about what would replace capitalism: the unpredictable future and the creation of models in the abstract was grounds for giving only the most general indications…a good example of unpredictable futures is the way ecological concerns have come to the fore and/or the displaced position of the working class has made working class revolution problematical. In fact, the problem was always there: visible in the confusion of the bolshevik era and its feckless yet dangerous ad hoc moments.
Now times have changed and as we approach what seems like the terminal crisis of capitalism we need to get more specific about an economics that works in the context of socialism/communism. The Sandinistas actually showed some originality here (but were actually opposed by the communists parties in their vicinity), but by the time a revolutionary party takes power it is probably too late: a recipe far in advance is needed, once again one that is both flexible and yet definite. We need to learn a lesson: marxists are focused on revolutionary transition but are incompetent at social reconstruction.
Our ‘DMNC/democratic market neo-communism’ attempts to do all this, though perhaps it needs a more specific ecological character (that however is easy to provide in the context of our model). The point here is that legacy marxism has consistently bungled the economic job and produced a field that was all too prone to counterrevolution.
This model suffers one and the same problem: lack of specification in the midst of far greater specification than what we see in legacy marxism. But it is at least approaching the right level of complexity, using disconnected elements that can be reconnected in an infinite number of ways as it forces the issue of authority and democracy, markets and planning, and expropriation taken beyond state capitalism into the realm of a Commons. All these entities need new analyses, new bodies of law, simulations and catch 22 points, etc…The point is that the legacy of Marx has not produced competence in postrevolutionary social reconstruction. The left has thrown away every opportunity it has had here. The lesson is clear: something better is needed. Marx/Engels are really about the 1840’s and its outcome in 1848. That’s an inspiring epic but the actual kind of result needed or possible has never had any real testing save only the disastrous bolshevism fiasco which has almost succeeded in destroying the socialist option in the minds of too many, to say the least.
The DMNC model pivots over markets/planning, for example. The issue of capitalism is not the same as that of markets: the point is to consider what kind of real economy can replace capitalist markets. Planning bureaucracies are incapable of this. And even the coming of AI and computational economics has not as yet produced anything successful as yet.
These problems can be solved but to move into a postrevolutionary phase as things stand now will only add to the dreary list of marxist/socialist/leninist failure. One more episode like bolshevism and the left will be lost forever as the Putin’s take over in the wasteland of idiot socialist experiments. Putins, not socialism, are the inevitable endgame as marxist idiots try their luck and fumble at the goal line.