The idea of capitalism is passing into oblivion, and not due to any persuasive leftism. Even as we speak the Amazon Basis is being deliberately destroyed, per capitalism, and the capitalists don’t even care.
Looking back at the history of the left (cf. Jacobin’s article on French socialism/communism, and many other perspectives) It seems as if there is a will to failure and a lack of clarity in the basic ‘ideology’, which is always highly influenced by Marxism. We have been critical of Marxism but always with a view to reassemble its many valuable components into a new framework. In many ways the left is still recovering from the confusions of Russian Communism. And before that the flaws in historical materialism. The latter may as well be set aside. Such a ponderous and dubious theory has confused everyone. What is needed now is not a theory of history but a platform that can work. I invite anyone who has theory of history to sit down and explain the eonic effect. But the way forward doesn’t need such a theory: We have suggested our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ which is a construct of communism inside a liberalism but not a social democratic system. The fundamental expropriation of capital is the foundation. But after that the whole trend of the old left is wrong. State capitalism was a fiasco, planned economies were a total muddle. The entire Bolshevik episode started not with a liberal set of rights, but the old Secret Police. Bolshevism was the secret police plus idiot economics. So a first step is habeas corpus. Liberal rights, economic rights but n ow based in a Commons. That is different from state capitalism. This kind of system could never figure out democracy inside a set of socialist assumptions. The strangest aspect here is none of these things were really problems. They were problems for marxists, but they are as easily solved as they are (supposedly) in liberal systems. Why on earth does every historical socialism/communnism (I no longer distinguish the two terms) end up in idiot outcomes? A better approach as in our DMNC lies in the realization that you can create (neo-) communism by simple expropriating capital and letting everything else stay the way it was. In fact the system would start to evolve on its own, But to start the whole fallacy of sate capitalism can be thrown out.
There is a lot to say here, but the left fails to see how they always create their own failure. We are out of time for anyone muddle heads on the left.
The capitalist era is passing and needs a bit of a push over the ledge. The alternatives are postcapitalism and postcapitalism.
In the first the ex-capitalists take over the far northern hemisphere, base operations in Sweden, and watch billions die from the video feeds int heir bunkers. In the second a hybrid liberalism/Communism is able to base a series economic trials of our ‘market economy’ based on a Commons and create ‘eonomic system’ at will’ based on a series of assumptions. Our democratic market neo-communism is like an erector set and more than as simple slogan, Socialism. It must integrate four components, markets, planning, democracy, authority in and above democracy, ownership as a Commons, and markets based not on capital but on capital in a Commons, which is NOT state capitalism. But this erector set has no doubt many variants. The dialectic of democracy and authority is about what we see in the failed version of American presidential confusion: a new system needs a socialist control and a higher power to guard the system, one and all limited in a set of balanced powers. We will leave it there for a moment but reiterate that capitalism used to be a debate, even as it was a sacred dogma, but now it has passed form its pedestal into the realm of critical evil. Even as we speak the Amazon basin, after decades of handwringing, is being destroyed, forever, in the name of capitalism. That’s merely an opener. The full picture points to….postcapitalism and postcapitalism. There is no plan B. Postcapitalism is plan B.
We have proposed a simple remedy: construct communism around a liberal system (the sense of the word is vexed, let us say FDR type liberal rather than classical liberalism).
The left has forever suffered its own flawed systematics inherited from Marxism and always ended up discombobulated.
But now the moment of truth is arriving: capitalism always had its curious potency but now the crisis confronting us is forced to focus on capitalism itself as the agent of catastrophe. To survive that crisis we must pass into a new system Given the failures on one idiot left after another the prospect has a high suspense.
————–The classic legacy of marxist thinking tends to create a jackknife of liberal and ‘communist’ thinking. The idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism is to build postcapitalism inside a libeeral framework, the term ‘liberal’ being at risk of many reactionary definitions.
archive: market (neo-)communism in the transition through the coming crisis…
April 2nd, 2016 ·
In the context of the climate crisis we are moving beyond populist politics on inequality: we will be lucky if we can prevent the elites from simply deleting the working and other classes from any share of the pie as they create elite survival pods.
In that context we must think in terms of the whole, i.e. some form of neo-communism, free of the cliches and dead hand of the older brands.
We might do what we did with socialism: consider market socialism, here market communism, as a gedanken experiment. A communist revolution might seem unrealistic, but if we approach the end point in stages we can begin to consider at least something: market communism considers a system of a planetary federation of communist republics, with control of all large-scale industry under governmental and UN control, but leaving some or multiple aspects of industrial civilization strictly regulated,
delivered beyond private property to the Commons, but still functioning in a de facto semi-independent manner. To this we have a strict new form of democracy where the control of process by capitalism is made impossible. The latter if accomplished, could rapidly transform the paralysis of government we see. There is a host of possible scenarios here, including full communism from the start in a situation of such crisis that the forms of economy and government collapse.
But there are a number of way stations reachable via electoral processes, or revolutionary situations at the margins. We should have a set of options in multiple varieties. What we must do is ask how a legacy marxism could prove viable, or remain worthy of a second chance. Surely we must recast that classic for a new situation, in a form that people will actually buy into. If we can get bolshevik lunacy out of our minds and memories we will see that the original idea of communism was transparent, robust,
republican/democratic, and economically intelligent, with covert agency lunatics, secret polices, etc…We can see how this could prove impossible to achieve: the boondocks of the American system under constitutional license is armed to the teeth and in denial about anything but further environmental exploitation, but the tipping point of shocked realization may actually exist: the competition of bad alternatives will sooner or later take effect.