May 26th, 2018
R48G: socialisms doomed to social democratic finale
January 16th, 2018 ·
socialism is not social democratic malarkey…//The Socialism America Needs Now | New
August 25th, 2017 ·
It is debatable whether it is worth reading an article in the New Republic about socialism. As I started reading I wondered how many paragraphs would pass before we were treated to social democratic blah blah. It didn’t take long. We get the whole package of
malarkey, including Bernstein no less.
These views might well be a ‘way to go’ but they aren’t socialism. Neither was the perspective of Sanders who mostly managed to confuse the term all over again, talked a good game, and accomplished nothing whatever along the lines of socialism. The term is almost not worth using anymore and we have specified communism to roust nonsense. I will not rule out the avenue of ‘leveraged socialist metaphors’ that leap out of their skin at the key moment and mean what they say. But that hope with Sanders seems to have been illusory.
The problem as we have noted is that marxism never properly defined its terms, its strategies or its theory. We have insisted on starting over and instead of social democratic blah blah packaged as socialism trying to construct a specific system that is communist,
or neo-communist in our sense, roughly the classic sense, going back to even before Marx. This system might well focus on the working class but it doesn’t have to. We have talked of the ‘universal class’ both realized and potential into which all classes would merge. It would consist of efforts to construct an economy on communist foundations and of course that would seem to involve ‘state capitalism’. We have a solution for that in a system of the separation of powers that is triadic: property belongs to a Commons and the
‘state’ does not as such have any control over it. That control would devolve to a three way triadic system of agencies that mediate the economy in planned, market and autonomous sectors. Since bourgeois capital would not exist the issue of markets would
be transformed, but they would be markets in a new sense. And they would coexist with a planned sector that would never be under the control of the state, as such, being mediated by legal and democratic mechanisms of various kinds. Most of all this new communism must deal with the arrival of the catastrophe of climate change and begin to consider economies that lead the way into a sane foundation: the issue of no-growth economies is tabled, as far as we can say (there are a number of possibilities), and this is difficult: no more gravy train socialism to attract the working class: we must create a system of equality, more or less, that can feed, house and employ a totality.
It is hard to see how this could happen short of revolution, but if that seems hopeless it is equally true that socialist posturing has accomplished absolutely nothing. The system we see is going to break: we should be ready for the de facto revolution that is almost sure to
happen as the elite idiots now in control (and with Trump getting worse) actually dismantle the EPA, a low in political stupidity that will bring the revolution sooner or later.
There is no reason why the proposals of Judis et al can’t be a parallel evolutionary path, but let’s call it something else and make the term ‘socialism’ stand for political refoundation, evolutionary or revolutionary.
We surely win the argument here: read to the end. Apple is to be brought under worker control. Only a revolution could do that, and any other idea is fantasy…
Let us reiterate our semantic protest: that’s not a rejection of these proposals for working in the system. But let’s not use the term ‘socialism’. But, since it is already coopted let’s talk about communism.
Source: The Socialism America Needs Now | New Republic