R48G: confronting planetary destruction by capitalist ‘deadly weapon’….
August 14th, 2017 ·
The question of revolution has been so distracted by its self-generated confusions that we are no longer able to put activist questions in right perspective. But we can at least make the point that current programs are not adequate to the situation in place and the crisis that is in progress. We can only consider some of the issues, from our perspective here:
the prime candidate here should be in the marxist legacy, but that legacy is unable to meet the challenge any more: we have suggested a new and more streamlined framework that can create a new consensus around a hybrid of socialism and democracy, but cast in a new way that is free of the onerous burden of marxist theory. We have suggested ditching historical materialism for a more flexible and broader historical perspective.
The communist legacy has been ‘discredited’ but it shouldn’t be that way. Two linked stories today (scroll down), on the bluefin tuna, and the destruction of Borneo, suggest, as do a thousand related facts/stories, the need for both a national and transnational solution to the crisis of capitalism. The
question of capitalism has gone critical although by and large the Fukuyama ‘end of history’ propaganda still reigns. The original vision of the second international and its immediate succession established more or less clearly the basis for a global/local resolution of issues.
Now we are floundering in a field of mysterious incompetence ruled by anarchists, gandhians, one issue activists, and the plaintive re-analysis of well-discussed issues.
The revolutionary option is virtually silent beyond the repetitive ‘Leninist’ encomnia that miss the point
that a new platform is needed.
We have gone back and forth between evolutionary/revolutionary pleadings but at this point we need without being dogmatic to call out the center of gravity on the left as without at least a potential revolutionary option. Perhaps it is as with the Sanders meme of ‘Our Revolution’ whose meaning is really phony socialism as social democratic posturing. The latter could also be taken as a rebirth of revolutionary thinking in a limited conception…
Again, all we can do is to point to a set of situations that counsel the logical inevitability of a revolutionary solution. At the same we must note that every time this issue is addressed the dead hand of marxist analysis takes over and we end up in marxist boilerplate.
Let us consider variant approaches: the american revolution as a model, unfortunately, of ‘bourgeois revolution’, remorphed as a new hybrid that emphasizes the true form of a democratic revolution as one that is socialist/communist, being careful to send marxists packing (even as we review their core legacy) if they their funny monopoly here.
The key here is however to not compromise with basics: our ‘democratic market capitalism’ performs this exercise by creating a basic democratic framework that can also embrace a version of postcapitalism: the issue of markets, in the context of a Commons, i.e. a communist expropriation of capital. The point is to start with a tactic to bring communism to liberalism (and liberalism to communism) in a path that evades utopian abstractions and deals with remorphable solutions of known historical constructs. That actually wouldn’t be so hard! The whole nightmare of Leninism/Stalinism is
confusing and distracting us. Time to press the reset button. And none too soon: between the expanding capitalist totalitarian system emerging and the feckless idiocy of marxists the revolutionary option is slipping away, which means the whole game is shot…
What five first steps (or ten…) could proceed along a revolutionary path?
we should invoke the option, first, the evolutionary path as a failsafe…
we need to create a virtual revolutionary option in waiting for the maturing opportunity, or the onset of