Although I respect the work of Marx/Engels as a foundational starting point the future almost always defeats efforts to defy its logic, as Oedipus learned the hard way. Stale reputation of Marx as a prophet is going to work a second time. But we can easily outwit historical mechanical degeneration with a simple restart, like a man of mediation who thinks ‘will in the now’, with a clarification of principles and new ways to consider the tricky nature of religious, secular, economic, and constitutional principles, this in the context of ‘democracy’. It is highly unlikely that the Marxist corpus can generate a new avenue to socialism, as Marx understood very well in his excessive refusal to legislate the future. A simple clarion call and a brilliant Manifesto seems right. The American system was destined to be replaced and it is just about written into the Constitution. An ominous echo of the period leading to the Civil War seems to echo in our own times as the curse of the original constitution’s compromise on slavery becomes the recurring nightmare of the so-called American republic and its endemic racism. The original constitutional framework may be beyond repair.
__________________prior versions and notes…
We need a socialist revolution, a new International, and an ecological revolution to create a global Commons. We have said little of working-class revolution but we will change that soon: the working class however is not defined very well: it includes all those subject to capitalism as passive persons (alienation). Then why pit the working in one set against others in another, all in the Universal Class. Further the creation of a working-class state is ill-defined and open to takeover by dictators claiming to represent the working, e.g. Lenin, with the loss of the right to even create labor unions. We would have to do better than that. Any working-class group is free to use this model as such. And a close alliance with working-class and union class struggles slips under our umbrella with ease. But in the end the working class moves to include almost everyone and it is the groups in the general Universal Class that will create a new society, one with robust socialist labor supports.
The idea of revolution here is a kind of virtual meditation short of an actual project: that can change, but the point is to reflect on any such project. Marxism and especially Bolshevism created immense confusion with the idea and the results didn’t work.
Although the ‘end of history’ debate was mostly confused it did suggest that a socialist revolution must produce democracy, i.e. democratic socialism. Clearly the original Marx theories failed to do that: a ‘revolution’ seizes power but then must yield that to a set of democrats, yet, the idea seems unreasonably optimistic.
Any idea of revolution therefore must be very specific about the transition beyond the revolutionary cadre which is likely to confront counterrevolution and stall.
We have suggested ways to failsafe this process, but perhaps it needs more detail. A constitution must come into existence and it must become the standard. But this is not like the American (bourgeois) revolution, which shows a successful transition: many years passed after the revolution before the constitution appeared.
A virtual idea of revolution can be immensely helpful to see the complexities of what is required. To just chant slogans of revolution and socialism is baseless hot air, as the Bolshevik case made clear. The immense counterrevolution of course of the capitalists and the governments dominated by them made the project fail.
Finished short section in Preface opening discussion of ecological/socialist issues. More to come in later chapters… Historical materialism, despite the efforts of figures like Bellamy, is a really poor perspective for eco-socialism. The eonic effect shows clearly the way the early modern is a balanced transition with the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement in synchronous counterpoint. The Romantic era is one of real sources of the coming ecology.
In general the eonic effect shows massive correlation with almost all the innovations, movements, religion, secularism, etc,… in world history. The idea that economics is the prime mover of historical eras and periods is simply false.
Marxists are completely closed in like a cult. I can’t even post a link at Marmail (I did once for a very early edition without much Marx criticism). Marxists would do well to study their critics, and this critique especially. Their opponents will.
Starting to bring in a lot of eco-socialist material, and other issues. Marxists e.g. Bellamy are claiming Marx was an ecologist all along. The evidence is marginal but the attempt is worthy, however: trying to add ecology to the Marx canon is another round of Marxist monopoly cultism. The eonic model shows the far larger and better resources of the modern transition on ecology: cf. the Romantic Movement. Historical materialism has to be just about the worse approach to ecology possible.
We have a new page showing how the eonic model or simply its basic data/chronology falsifies historical materialism. Marx was obsessed with creating a science/theory of history, and the fate of most theories is falsification. It is puzzling that Marx should have gotten stuck on this point, but he wanted to make the passage beyond capitalism a kind of historical guarantee. It doesn’t work and throws the whole Marx project into a kind of limbo. Let’s be clear: you can’t impose on humanity a theory of history that almost everyone else knows is false. Yet Marxists are totally stuck on this issue. They live in a cultic dream world and their fate is to have no further chances for social transformation. Even sympathetic socialists won’t stand for it.
We have bypassed the issue by sticking to simple chronologies of history and the result is surprisingly suggestive of what a real science of history would be, but we can’t carry out that project because we have both too much and too little data: for what we see the literature is immense, millions of books, literally, for what we don’t see very well, e.g. the Neolithic, we are left high and dry: we can’t conclude how to take the Neolithic (although it is obvious to the naked eye that a set of hidden transitions are probably there).
It is time to denounce the immense harm done by Darwinism and the stupid ‘scientists’ who enforce dogma there. The data of the eonic effect should be a university study as a solid foundation of a new kind of post-theory. But the dogmatists reign supreme and won’t even spit in the direction of anyone who dissents from the whole shebang of ideological pseudo-science enforced to keep people in a social darwinist economic culture.
From the new Preface
Is revolution a patriotic duty?
But is the American system crippled beyond repair, even for a revolutionary restart? The Last Revolution could start better in many places, but the US will soon destroy it. So the American case is perhaps the only starting point. The US was/is not really a democracy at all, ignored the warnings of the British it would be genocidal to the indigenous peoples, could not declare against slavery, created an endemic racist legacy, crippled Latin America and the Middle East with repeated imperialistic action, turned into a stooge of criminal Zionists, rapidly became a Wall Street oligarchy, is now controlled by covert agencies and that phantom, The Deep State, and murdered its own citizens in the 9/11 false flag operation, the inability to control gun laws and the reign of hundreds of mass murders,… The terminal brainwashing of the American Republic is a dangerous new Leviathan masquerading as a republic.
The legacy of Marxism is been a failure and made socialism seem unobtainable.
The reality is that it should be easy to establish a socialist system, as long as we confront the issue of Capital as private property. That’s the hard part, but the dynamics of a socialist society should be far simpler than the mental confusion about theory left by Marxism. Enough of it. Real socialism can be described in a few pages. We don’t need an elaborate theory of history, economic determinism, dialectic, battles with Hegel, battles between idealism and materialism, it is all useless and had confused almost everyone.
The main thing is to create a socialist economy that is functional, a task beyond the ken of Marxist/bolshevik derivatives. Beyond that the issue of democracy cannot be resolved in the dismissal of liberalism that lead to dictatorship. The trick is to create a neo-communism out of a liberal system, and add economic rights.