DMNC: reconciling social democracy and real communism
August 2nd, 2018 •
The left needs a new formulation that can reconcile social democracy and a real communism that is escape from the predetermined failure of social democracy.
The social democratic illusion is not such to most of the activist left which is floundering in the alternative with marxist/bolshevik thinking and falling back into social democratic mess of pottage: this is actually strengthening the trend toward false reformism. And the idea of capitalism as a stage in history leads to a failure to define in advance what can replace it: simply chanting ‘communism’ has proven a recipe for disaster…
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ creates a complete caesura of thought with respect to both extremes. If the reformist left could at least see a ‘reformist’ path to a real communism it might actually generate a revolutionary situation. But we can see the way talk of socialism, or the ‘our revolution’ of sanders is really undermining those terms and making everything refer to a muddle of no significance with any terminology. https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf
R48G: capitalism is not a stage of (economic) history: marxist production theory is misleading and making the problem worse…did Marx/Engels fumble the ball? April 5th, 2017 •
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_3_2.htm“>a href=”http://history-and- evolution.com/whee4th/chap6_3_2.htm”>http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/ chap6_3_2.htm
The whole emphasis of Marxism is confused: the way that capitalism was turned into a stage of history as a stage of production ended up giving it a status it didn’t deserve and is one aspect of its persistence in the sense of Marx’s concealed bourgeois tendencies assuming this stage of production must exhaust its potential before moving beyond itself,
a disastrous gift to the fanatics of capitalist futurism. The potential of this set of fake systems could never be exhausted and the truer circumstance is that this fake stage of history will terminate a planet.
The emergence of ‘capitalism’ is relative: in a fairly general definition, it goes back to the
Neolithic or beyond and is present in all phases of civilization. The equivocation here over capitalism as a modern phenomenon is simply another case of its ‘relative’ transformations, and the onset of the industrial revolution along with the ideology of such as Adam Smith and the invention of new kinds of financial instruments created the illusion that a new capitalist era had somehow replaced feudalism as a new stage of history.
The study of the eonic effect demonstrates a more complicated picture in which economic systems in various stages and formats are embedded in a larger social context. Marx and Engels understood all this until they misunderstood it with the creation of
‘historical materialism’. A more realistic picture is that capitalism is a set of innovations inside a larger system and that its nefarious character, the object of immediate protest, created the need for a new kind of social system that could control its rogue character.
Capitalism was always a rogue process and there was never any reason that the whole of humanity was to be subjected to market forces in the name of the laws of history was a gross fallacy and a decided fumble by Marx/Engels.
Marx/Engels were however pretty clear in the 1848 period of the dangers of the situation and the need to act at once to move to a new type of system.
Our DMNC is incomplete?
January 9, 2019
The history of political systems is mostly a hack of a primitive set of concepts doomed to failure because they are abstractions that soon wear out in the tide of historical collision. Democracies become oligarchies and the idea of communism like a bad pointer in c programming simply crashed at the start due to a lack of definition of the term. A fundamental here is that communism is by definition democratic even though it can also manifest balanced strong authority. The reverse is true: Marx despite the flaws of his theories saw clearly that poorly defined democracies are prey to capitalist domination. The term communism has become a synonym for Stalinism such is the incompetence of marxist/leninist bunglers.
We fail to realize the need for a much more complex set of definitions for political/cultural systems. The idea of a balance of powers remains a key innovation in the rise of modern political systems. The full definition would a large book!
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is still primitive but leaves conventional pseudo-democracy and pseudo-communism in the rear view mirror. The treatment of
‘markets’ is also novel and this is not the same as free market capitalism…It is also possible that innovation in AI and computational economics will solve the calculation/clearing issues that crippled bolshevik idiocy.
Our DMNC model no doubt suffers many gaps and is incomplete. We can suggest a few things to think about:
It needs a legal definition of the Commons to escape the confusions of state capitalism. The Commons is a shared set of resources. The state can’t decree its disposition beyond the consent of its co-owners.
An ecological socialism needs fine-grain and ecological courts need still another legal definition.
The political system is a balanced democratic system with multiparties AND a presidential system with strong powers to protect the Commons/communism but beyond that no further powers beyond mediation.
The politics is a combined presidential and congressional or parliamentary system. The presidential system inherits the revolutionary/evolutionary cadre as a one party state ON TOP of a multiparty state. The one-party presidential system stands guard over the
Commons, but has almost no powers beyond that. It does not regulate the economy or the legal system, etc…
The issue of covert agencies is critical and the system must start over and regulate the formation of deep states run by psychopaths.
The focus is on state communism, but in the context of a new International.
The parliamentary system can be a rough three party triad (or anything else) with a strong defense against any kind of outside funding, etc…
The ‘third’ party is the source of ‘new parties’ or new recastings of party aims and tasks,
The market economy is run by socialist entrepreneurs and/or managerial cadres and licenses resources from the Commons. It can possibly reduplicate its orgs which then
‘compete’ moderately to produce efficient production. This system is parallel to a set of planned factors that also mediate the open market system.
The third low level semi-anarchist system allows a range of variant social dna as if to create a zoo of alternate social potentials. This mix is a triadic balance factor but cannot overtake the larger system.
This combination must solve populist economic rights once and for all and yet maintain the equivalent of ‘union’ orgs to mediate production, labor, and access to the Commons. The result is a kind of socialist ‘capitalism’ without capitalists.
There is a lot more here, but the point is to remain faithful to the basic concepts of
‘communism’ and ‘democracy’ and yet break the mould of the sterile history of ideas here. Such a system will be ‘differentially equal’, that is marginal inequalities will remain even as the system moves toward the proper redistribution. It will have a strong presidential guardianship, a robust congressional democracy, and a sort of anarchist low level that balances the strong top level authority to maintain the rules of the game. Such a system leaves the current combinations in the dust but is not utopian as it manifests marginal imperfections, etc…
There is a lot more to say here and it points to a huge task of social construction with socialist/communist axioms, save that there is little as a tradition here and much noise from marxist dead concepts. We say to the future: don’t blow it!