From improbability to the inevitable?

The chance of revolution has gone from skepticism to a sense of the inevitable with the parodist Trump staging the rationale for the gambit with his self-destructive/republic destructive surface comedy

Braving the ‘impossible’
May 8th, 2016 ·

Why are we set on the impossible? It is possible the idea of revolutionary new communism is unrealistic, abstract, etc…but the current debates over socialism operate at best on a treadmill and have a half-life in their degeneration into social democratic ‘terminal socialist double talk’. It is nothing of the kind. It is the only realistic strategy at this point.
The answer is simple: nothing at present is working or going to work. The OWS, gone. Sanders et al.
going, going… And in each case this was predicted at the start by some.
We have a new potential opening: climate chaos added to capitalism chaos is going to do the work of revolution. A neo-communist group needs to be ready at the sidelines the way the bolsheviks were. But a new communism can’t use anything much from the old canon.

It must have a revolutionary project, military, rebellion mode, colonial war mode…

a parallel electoral project

an economic plan, in writing

along with a critique of current economic theory a democratic project inside a communist project
a possible transitional stage of market communism

a philosophy beyond materialism to be able to communicate with the religious majorities

…that should include a new and more robust humanism/secular definition

…one that can critique and yet can at least communicate with religious legacies

…including xtianity, buddhism, islam… (I think a better ‘humanism’ would be immensely helpful beyond
the current Feuerbachian Iron Cagism)

nation/international aspects….
It is sad but the last issue was already in place in the twentieth century, and we lost all of it. Part of the reason is the shoddy character of marxism as a poor foundation…
The working class versus the universal class versus-the-universal-class/

Correctly interpreting the marxist tradition is very difficult, and is beset with the knee jerk defense of
Marx at all points. But maybe Marx got it wrong. Or maybe times have changed.

We have tried here to streamline the whole legacy, make it independent of the term ‘marxism’ and the cult of Marx. We have also challenged the excessive focus on the working class, instead looking at the Universal Class as a superset of the working class. The Universal Class is present at most activist movements while the working class is not always so active. In any case we need to work with the full set of the complement to the bourgeoisie, a much larger set, and very often the real source of radical
Consider this book on Lenin: ebook/dp/B01912KMW8/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462633151&sr=1-
1&keywords=le+blanc+lenin : Lenin and the Revolutionary Party

In most cases there is talk about the working class but when the acid test comes, a vanguard forms and acts in the name of the working class.
The idea of the Universal Class can mediate this easily: it is the same as the working class and/or a superset that can be the flexible placeholder in actual situations. Look at the Sanders movement? How many are working class? Most are my Universal Class, technically working class, but not really bluecollar.
We are not likely to get a revolution by the working class. Let’s be honest and attempt a revolution with the Universal Class, and make the outcome a matter of principle, i.e. communist foundations. We must trust that this group or universal class can be trusted to act on principle, given the inevitability of the universal class ending up with a vanguard. These points are all debatable, but the classic marxist jargon isn’t producing anything at this point.
We need someone/somwho’s with the resolve to create a revolution (or an electoral version, perhaps both in parallel), whoever they are. Such groups can betray principle. But look at the Trump movement. The working class types there aren’t exactly radical.
A movement of the Universal Class can actually create a superior form of equality, because it will define that in terms of principles. The marxist approach makes the working class the dominant class, a form of inequality!
It is not a big deal, actually. We stop waiting around for the working class, and just act with a new party of any and all types.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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