Dated for May 22
Models of economy beyond capitalism were beyond the capacity of the older left/marxists but the task is not so hard if you can get beyond the confusions amid clarifications of Marx et al. This version also gets around to discussing something mentioned was back: the lower indifference level in the DMNC model beyond the high level control system of market neo-communism: the idea is that below a certain level the higher-level control system of (socialist) markets/planning need not apply and can be, well, laissez-faire (to recycle ironically that detested term, here is a new sense. The state cannot control a whole system, and it dosesn’t need to so so to create a viable socialism.
The world of Sanders has inspired many, but his usage of the term Our Revolution to refer to socialism really meaning social democracy has done harm, he is hardly alone. And the problem is easy to correct. Stop double talk about socialism: if you use the term you mean to refer to a revolutionary transition. Sanders is a failure and it resent his posh Senate retreat zone while I remain in the limbo of capitalist pseudo-society. He was no working-class revolutionary.
We are in the last decade(s) for real change that can prevent disaster. Since the left of the last generation has accomplished almost nothing, I mean suggest a look at the text here…Failure on climate seemed inconceivable once: surely the US could respond to the crisis. But in seventy years it has done almost nothing and now the far right is making the situation even worse. We can’t wait for the off-chance of a Congress/Senate that can manage a Green New Deal.
Lots of changes in various parts of the book.
The issue of revolution invokes plots against the dot.gov, quite illegal, but so was the American Rev. Take the method offered: we are exploring
the aspect of ‘virtual revolution’, try if anything to enforce a new discipline to the subject, and offer a warning of possible system collapse,
and move to protect democracy with a challenge to the current counterrevolutionary right’s hidden coup in progress for a fascist degradation of democracy.
Study this like a map to a fire extinguisher: ready for emergencies. The one coming could be a humdinger
Although slightly off-topic we can cite a post at redfortyeight.com on the UFO (given a dose of validity after a Congressional hearing.
The UFO question can’t get very far with the images in public of supposed spacecraft.
I recommend something more useful: study the eonic effect and ask yourself if this ‘evolutionary’ process is a planetary process, an induced process from galactic planetary life, or a fix by aliens in UFO’s. The last two options I don’t accept but the issue asks a critical question: how do civilizations evolve? As we saw today with our critique of physicists the whole of human culture has a hidden helper process and clearly modern physicists have developed a seeded science with advanced mathematics. It might well be confused with the acts of advanced civilizations, but I doubt it: the planets are the ‘real’ aliens so to speak. The concept of higher intelligence might be some form artificial intelligence in nature itself bootstrapping since the Big Band, and or the dawn of life on a planet like Terra. The point here is that interactions with aliens could hardly seed civilizations. Even highly intelligent aliens (humans) can’t process the information required. Consider the stupendous data, the sequence of life, its species, body plans, historical track as a species, etc… I think the only element that could process data on that scale would be a planet, how? I haven’t the foggiest. But we know little about planets, as yet.
and another post:
Physics as a directed process…
older version intro’s….
The world needs a new path to socialism and/or neo-communism. I should also say neo-socialism but will keep the term for general reference.
The coming crisis is going to produce horrific effects (or so I suspect) and democracy could go out the window.
Socialism should offer proteThe_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_version_5_19_22ction to democracy.
Take our formulation as a way to protect democracy in the context of a socialist protective wrapper to ensure social sanity.
The book aimed to be short and simple but perhaps has been a bit elaborate. But in principle, the issues are transparent and simple.
We really don’t want another Marxist botch like China and North Korea.
I have discussed Marx’s failure of theory further in the second chapter on World History. The left needs a form of world history
that is not confused by bad theories and the hopeless muddle of Darwinism.
The intellectual public simply disregards criticism of Darwinism, an almost tragic state of affairs.
Outsiders as in my case are needed to try and penetrate the droning trance of the intellectual class.
Sorry, but it is true
The text has expanded suddenly, so there is new material.
Keep in mind then that the material is like a recipe, not a theory, can be easily found in finite descriptive steps,
resolves the economic muddle of Marxism, steps past Darwinism, and is short.
Socialist democracy is going to be a lifeboat that many long time skeptics just might come to welcome as social defense as
the powers that be abandon the public as the crisis deepens, as they did with the covid pandemic.
I have shortened each chapter by leaving a lot to the notes:
I have done this to two more chapters
So you are reading about a fifty page book
It is enough to start a process of creating a sane and truer democracy by giving it a
basic socialist safeguard.
This edition is going to start an expansion of the text using among other things blog posts and more and more book citations. But the core text can omit these and move into a Kindle edition soon, a paperback later. The new material is at the end of the Conclusion chapter in the Notes….
I fear that The Last Revolution has everything you need for democratic socialism except The Revolution. Can we expect such a happenstance? If it is going to happen it has to happen Soon//immediately. This is the last decade we have and yet in an extraordinary circumstance, the entire political class is in a state of…neologism imminent: anal capitation. But they suffer from their own political limits: many issues of critical importance have no support in the public, victims of so much brainwashing they/it can’t grasp the logic of climate change, etc… Surely politicians could in principle show some leadership and easily influence opinion. But the crypto-fascist right and the Republican world has gone totally insane.
Whatever the case, the factor of revolution needs consideration. It is NOT TRUE FALSE that progressives, and highly virtuous handwringers are going to defeat climate catastrophe by non-violence placard-waving in public. But am I wrong?
This text merely cites ‘revolution’ as a virtual gedanken experiment. And it rushes to challenge the one group that might produce revolutionary action but who in every case have wasted their opportunity: the Marxists. I invite Marxists to do ‘born again’ sommersaults and move into new terrain, maybe even using the material here. Please don’t think that Marxism can create a new society that is functional, constitutional, ecosocialist with economic, civil and ecological rights. Marxists have nothing offer in fact and by comparison our DMNC model, actually seen for what it says, could prove highly popular.
In a way the whole experimental text needs already a new edition based on its citation of a new International, and a degrowth version of the model. Degrowth is likely to produce dictatorship and class control of resources inequitably/inevitably, unless (UNLESS) a revolutionary action can produce ‘social self-defene’. A socialist distribution of resources under conditions of degrowth just might be the last chance.
earlier version notes
We had a post today (scroll down) on secession movements from the left, and in general American history. But in the end the Civil War decided the abolition issue.
A new secession movement on the right might end in one from the left. But again a revolutionary resolution or civil war enters the dialogue/dialectic…
Consider then, our notion of The Last Revolution in that context… It is perfectly possible for a reformist path to a new foundation to emerge
as a revolutionary option.
In any case, it seems that the American Republic is a strange cripple and misfounded from the start. The strange resemblance to the Dred Scott era is ominous…
dated for tomorrow, Sunday…
The US is starting to fall apart: this text, The Last Revolution, can be taken in several ways, an actual project, a tool to consider strategies of change, self-defense against right-wing fascist counterrevolution, a plea for democratic socialism, a tool of virtual reflection that enforces thinking about the whole puzzle, etc…
The sad reality is that the American legacy, from the revolution to the present, was a botch from the start, even though it seized the moment to get something to happen. The American system was thus a very limited ‘democratic’ fiction, had a terrible genocidal history, along with an imperialistic rogue history abetted by criminal organizations like the CIA, etc… Criminal elements in the government made a bundle off the opium gravy train in Afghanistan, and no aspect of government can detect the new dot.gove mafia that has come into being, with covert agencies out of control. The power of the new mind-control tactics to steer a mesmerized populace are terrifying and the 9/11 false flag criminal episode remains so carefully fixed in place in a brainwashed public. And the data on the recent pandemic are an utter condemnation of this criminal farce called American democracy.
The left needs to consider the virtual revolution, at the least and consider something better than the now useless Marxism, which has failed so miserably in practice. A viable socialist democracy with a robust economy would not be so hard to set up, if the will to expropriation can see the project through. Our model is designed to deal with core top level industrial capital and leaves a lower threshold alone, a massive simplification of the madness let loose by Bolshevism in its figments of Marxism. We should note that the WII economic emergency virtually accomplished that first stage basic so it is not unreasonable to consider the key issue of expropriation.
The world system is about to founder and yet no one is prepared for what is needed, with Marxists balking at the key moment.y moment.
How do we define a Commons,
ecological, global, industrial? What is the meaning of democracy in the wake of the era of Rousseau: electoral or direct democracy… Democratic socialism will inherit these questions and our model is simple and clear, yet not fully specified in terms of constitutional thinking. Our treatment deals with issue of the working class in a new way. Marx focussed his whole effort on the working class but his stance is not consistent now. The working class in the US is really middle class and not revolutionary. What is the working class: as the set of wage laborers it includes elements of all classes. Taken that way we can indeed use the meme of the ‘working’ class as a basic core with multiple aspects. But we are doing more than freeing labor under socialism, we must also deal with issues of all classes, with universal class diversity, and with the very large near universal class of those who are wage laborers (but that includes managers in capitalist orgs) and/or those who are passive under capitalist domination. We can design a very powerful generalization here to include almost all classes and yet at the same time create a spearhead in the industrial proletariat and the issues of such labor. We can unify all this around a Commons, with a new International and move outward toward the field of globalization where the old proletariat is still very much in evidence
(This reminds me of Mr. H.C. Earwicker in Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake, a k a, Here Comes Everybody)
A post on Marx/Marxism…
We had a post on Marxism at the redfortyeight.com blog:
A Guide to using Capital as a doorstop….//Reading Karl Marx for the First/Last Time
We have been critical of Marx in The Last Revolution because of the way his framework has confused the left and created a corpus of bad theory that even its adherents never really understand. Marx is much too complicated and those who penetrate that obscurity suddenly realize he doesn’t know what he is talking about. His theories of economic history have no foundation in science and give a false view of history. He was never able to complete his Capital and struggled to clarify his own thinking. The title of this piece gives it away: you need a guide to read him, and that means you need a new elite or priesthood to mediate your opinions or views. You can’t deviate from the doctrine and if you do you are dangerously counterrevolutionary, etc… Instead, we need a simple recipe approach to constructing socialism with an economy that can function, a clear path to a new kind of democracy, a Commons that can mediate socialist markets plus planning, a set of ecological foundation principles, and a genuinely neo-communist (we can no longer really use the term ‘communist’) system that guarantees liberal, civil, and economic rights. The Marxist corpus has failed every time it was tried. We need to start over. Marxists can’t specify what kind of society they want, and in their focus on the (undefined) working class declare war on all other classes and provide no escape route for general participation of all such. In Stalin we actually see genocidal class warfare carried out (in a totally incoherent fashion)…
This article is interesting in any case but once again it shows the overall confusion in Marx’s later works and most of all his view of the Commune. But all we really need is the Communist Manifesto. Beating the dead horse of Capital is pointless now.
As to the Commune I would take Marx seriously with his warning about the working class and revolution. The problem is this period is unique and never replicated itself as a model. What’s wrong? But even there we are confounded by dubious theory. The Bolshevik revolution shows how the infamous botched meme, the dictatorship of the proletariat backfired in the Russian Revolution and produced the infamous dictatorship of the Marxist bourgeoisie claiming to operate in the name of the proletariat, this from devoted student of the Commune, who ended banned labor unions and exploiting labor to develop the backward Russia. A more careful approach is needed to the issue of a working-class state. The reality is that a system run by an elite will probably always seize control in the name of the proletariat. The Commune is a mystery in that regard, and it is a real challenge to any student on the left, but it failed as it declared war on the whole outstanding culture and turned working-class power into a zero sum game. But is Marx really right? A safer approach would try to create a working-class foundation inside a liberal system with economic rights guaranteed legally. In any case the Marxist left has never really made sense of their own position and the later works of Marx aren’t much help.
The solution here might be to see that a ‘Universal Class’ of all classes has many subsets among them the various ‘working classes’: defining the working clas as wage laborers includes elements of all classes. A Universal Class must work in terms of the full ‘working class’, see its interconnection with all classes. There the distinct working class of industrial laborers might be a vanguard. In any case Marx’s class analysis is a muddle and finally incoherent.
There is a lot more to discuss in this article, but let’s at least hope to shock ‘marxists’ out of their complacent confidence in Marx’s theory.
The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures is a free download at redfortyeight.com sidebar
or the most recent version with a link good for a short period:
—————intro older versions
Marxists are frozen in time and are disoriented by their own framework which operates like a cult. The subscribers at Marxmail will do everything they can to apply cancel culture to a critic of Marx. They are too far gone to create socialism. But critics of Marx appeared already in the nineteenth century. Yet Marxists can’t acknowledge any problems with their ‘theoretical baggage’. The result further cannot escape entanglement with either Bolshevik histories, Leninist misanalysis, or the Chinese (what to say of the North Korean) monstrosity of pseudo-communism. That’s the danger and the legacy created by Marx: if you refuse to get specific then the job will done later by people we can hardly acknowledge as in any way socialists, let alone democrats. China is NOT a realization of the socialist hope, but Marxists lost control over their own terminology. We have created failsafed terminologies: we don’t just speak of ‘socialism’ but of a four-term system that mediates democracy/authority, planning/markets, a Commons versus state control (but the state still has indirect control via a set of guardians (ex-revolutionaries?) of that Commons. And this system has a low level threhold which will create a loose and more fluid base. Democracy is tricky enough by itself, in the context of a Commons beyond high-level Capital, it becomes even more tricky: it must use power to set up a system, but then enter a ‘let-go’ to allow the new system to function, and in a new form of democracy where capitalism is passing into postcapitalism. But such a system can still have markets, but the standard capitalist markets. And so: the list of considerations explodes in manifold directions, but we have at least a way to start over with a system that is a novel form of both democracy and socialism.
It is important to produce an analysis of this type as the Chinese case, for example, with immense power, persists in a form of pseudo-communism. The whole system seems beyond repair or redemption. So real socialists have to say goodbye to the past and start over. Is it too late? At some point coming soon the world system is going to go into convulsions and a new left such as with our DMNC will find the socialist window opening up again: but it cannot reissue Marxist cliches a second time. It needs some that will work on many levels. We have tried to consider how Marxist thinking was so antagonistic to liberalism that it jackknifed against it and denounced democracy as a bourgeois illusion. That’s unfair to Marx, until it is quite fair. We see the problem with Lenin who was oblivious to his whole legacy and current state and slipped immediately into dictatorship plus secret police mode.
I think that our DMNC is able to pass the ‘open society’ test, would seem attractive as a new democracy to a huge constituency short of the Marxist ‘cram it down your throat’ brand. The issue of economic rights could create a thriving new brand of democracy with the capitalist factor brought to some sanity.
We are in a strange situation with a public in the US that has to a large degree gone insane. I (or ‘we’ since the point is clear to many) have watched the US system since the 1970’s and see absolutely nothing done in a politics so mediocre one shudders to peer out at its dementia clothed in Imperialism and Wall Street.
It may seem an impossible hope, but the simple gesture of a book on the “last revolution’ will be a challenge to a system that has slipped away. As the world system starts to collapse we need something such as our model(s) to make clear to the thugs who will try to create a (fascist) dictatorship what we mean by democracy…