Rewrite/repost from 2018
The left needs its marxist groups but they all need to reorient their thinking beyond the stale and counterproductive limits of older paradigms. If anything, the older left is the best safeguard against revolutionary change.
To start, marxism has a bad theory of history. This theory is demonstrably limited, indeed fallacious. No praxis can be based on a flawed theory, therefore any praxis that does isn’t going to work for a new social transformation. The bolsheviks used this theory and failed, they were so harebrained that they hardly count. Current marxists persist in all the details of this theory, and are not likely therefore to have a real opportunity. Why? Because marxism has a bad theory of history, and no praxis can be based on a flawed theory. If they get another chance they will end in the same hare-brained mess as before. Why? Because you can’t base a praxis on a false theory.
Instead of a ‘theory’ of history let’s recommend a set of empirical chronicles based on broad divisions:
the period of high sumer and egypt (which also introduce africa to our discussion, they also probably include the new world since there are ambiguous hints of early discoveries of the americas)
their successions and diffusion zones: an increasingly globalizing mega-oikoumene, mesopotamia, indic and chinese sucessions, etc…
the so-called ‘axial period’ which can call the ‘sampling of eurasia’: we can focus one a broad sample: greece/rome, israel/persia, india, china…
the period of the great religions
the rise of modernity
We note that economics is not fundamental to this ‘evolution of civilization’, although the core emphasis on ‘production’ is quite suitable here. But the dynamics of these evolving ‘civilizations’, Civilization, is very practical and robust.
Lurking in the background is the ‘eonic model’, an optional approach already subsumed in this chronicle. Note: you can hardly go wrong with this approach because it isn’t a theory. It shows a clear epochal series, but this is still conjectural.
The point here is that we are rid of feudalism, capitalism, communism as successive epochs.
The epoch of modernity shows not the birth but an expansion of capitalism, which probably originates in the neolithic, which shows an expansion of capitalism, followed by capitalism in the wake of Sumer, which shows an expansion of capitalism outside of state economies, and this invents the truckstop for tradeoutes (using bullock carts),quite capitalist. The emergence of communism/capitalism is not successive but synchronous: a hint we may have to hybridize the two (check out our model in our two manifestos)
Our chronicle follows the eonic effect, or else the eonic effect follows our chronicle. A look at this pattern and/or eonic effect shows that we won’t arrive at a theory of history any time soon. So it is better not to bluff the public any more here. …This data is tough, and just getting a bibliography set up is a HUGE job.
Again, the marxist approach, despite many nuggets of useful material, is a false theory and will lead to failure, as evidenced already by history. Why? Because, ditto, cf. the above…
Using the above we can reconstruct what we need without pretending to fully understand the enigma of world history.
We must construct communism inside ‘capitalism’ and vice versa, with a liberalism that is communist and a communism that is liberal.
A hybrid of communism and capitalism seems mysterious: it merely means we must find a socialist equivalent of markets (computers, AI…), and/or some form of ‘market’ inside a socialist culture. In our model we base the system on a Commons, which is the socially shared set of resources reclaimed from ‘private property’ or primitive accumulation, etc…
Once the Commons is guaranteed, and the politics made democratic as constitutional communism, the issue of markets becomes secondary: we can do with or without, who cares as long as socialist axioms prevail, or at least pervade. Our ‘capitalists’ can become social entrpreneurs and license resources from the Commons. There is no reason a former capitalist can’t manage resources now in the Commons after the fashion of a ‘market’ of some kind (or druther). The number of possible innovations here is very large and we can simply bypass the ‘rabble of ludwig mises’ trying to cavil the calculation debate.
Our democratic system has many versions: in one version we have a four party state: a party of communist originals who are guardians of the Commons, own no private property and are ‘ascetics of socialism’. The have the power severely limited of simply acting as figureheads but with the power to safeguard against counter-revolution.
This higher party would have no rights to intervene in the overall function of the system, and it would also be a guardian of civil rights (along with a system of courts and checks and balances).
Civil liberties within a communist context would be fundamental…
This system needs to solve the ‘working class’ aspiration to economic rights from the start. But it must also consider the coming ‘impossible’ world of degrowth, ecological limits, etc…
A parliament of a triad of parties includes two relative opposites and a third dialectical ‘party’ that can spawn new parties to replace elements of the basic dyad.
The issues of ecological socialism are fundamental and regulated by ecological courts.
The economic system is triple, another triad, planned sectors, a socialist market sector, and a third lower indifference level system of disparate elements, a let go as an ‘anarchist’ potential, farms, shops, agencies, ngo’s, etc…Anything that becomes large scale enters the larger system…etc… Half the problems with ‘capitalism’ are solvable by simple regulation. Our ‘market’ sector would be thus highly regulated, yet able to function in many ways like a market…etc…
This system must unlike previous models here be able to both set an international AND create a ‘socialism in one country’ (more or less). That way, a viable global communism can built itself piece meal, and/or generate a revolutionary globalization.
This system could have Big Chief Eagle Feather as head of state, or even the queen of england (since the brits will soon follow suit here in the International), or both, who cares?