Democratic Market Neo-communism
We have discussed this issue here many times but the author of this piece sees the basic point: the bolshevik era never produced any socialisms at all. The stalinist brand especially was simply a socialist imposter.
There is every possibility for real socialism and in an era of approaching climate calamity we can see that capitalism is coming to an even worse failure than fake socialism. We must figure out where fake socialism went wrong and create the real thing. Part of the problem lies in Marx’s mis-analyis of capitalism and then in his stages of production theory the prophecy of the coming of communism, which he failed to define. The result was that Stalin ended up being the definer. The coming of socialism is not historically invevitable: it must be defined and then created by free agents, not historical forces. We can see that Marx equated capitalism and markets but the two are not the same: we could have socialist/communist markets if we do it right. Continue reading “Were marx’s theories to blame?…//Why Did Socialism Fail?”
We have tried over and over again to demonstrate a very simple upgrade of the idea of ‘communism’ and our (free) text/pdf (there are commercial versions also) twin Manifestos attempt to get specific about what communism, or what we call neo-communism might/should be. It is a strange fact that Marx refused to define what it should be and then said that its future was inevitable. The result was a Stalinits plug in and probably a fatal blow to the whole idea.
But our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ offers some suggestions for avoiding the trap that marxism has created. It just won’t happen a second time that the marxist legacy will get the right result. A very clear system needs to be created that will obviate the confusions perpetrated by marxists…
The quoted passage is typical marxist bullshit. Marx’s delusion that he had created a science was a bad mistake and the result is the useless distinction of utopian and scientific socialism. The utopians get bad rap: the simple requirement of defining what communism should be is omitted as marxist boilerplate takes over and people assume that communism has been defined. To call people ‘utopian’ because they try to define what they are doing in terms of the values needed is the grossest of Marx’s idiotic errors and the result was value-free stalinist ‘science’.
These communist groups are packs of idiots who are currenly put huge obstacles in the way of a true what I would call a ‘neo-communism’ to avoid the tissue of errors taken from Marx by these stalinist dupes.
Scientific socialism as we know it today developed out of the early 19th century critique, by Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and their comrades and followers of what they called utopian socialism.The term “utopian” refers to the book Utopia, published in the year 1516 by the 16th Century English philosopher and statesman Sir Thomas More.The utopian socialists expressed beautiful ideas about a better world, but their plans fell short because they were not rooted in the material reality of early industrial Europe and its growing class struggle between capitalists and workers.In the context of the expansion of industry and the industrial proletariat in Europe, Marx and Engels came on the scene.
Source: A brief history of the world communist movement – People’s World
The history of political systems is mostly a hack of a primitive set of concepts doomed to failure because they are abstractions that soon wear out in the tide of historical collision. Democracies become oligarchies and the idea of communism like a bad pointer in c programming simply crashed at the start due to a lack of definition of the term. A fundamental here is that communism is by definition democratic even though it can also manifest balanced strong authority. The reverse is true: Marx despite the flaws of his theories saw clearly that poorly defined democracies are prey to capitalist domination. The term communism has become a synonym for stalinism such is the incompetence of marxist/leninist bunglers.
We fail to realize the need for a much more complex set of definitions for political/cultural systems. The idea of a balance of powers remains a key innovation in the rise of modern political systems. The full definition would a large book!
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is still primitive but leaves conventional pseudo-democracy and pseudo-communism in the rear view mirror. The treatment of ‘markets’ is also novel and this is not the same as free market capitalism…It is also possible that innovation in AI and computational economics will solve the calculation/clearing issues that crippled bolshevik idiocy.
Our DMNC model no doubt suffers many gaps and is incomplete. We can suggest a few things to think about:
It needs a legal definition of the Commons to escape the confusions of state capitalism. The Commons is a shared set of resources. The state can’t decree its disposition beyond the consent of its co-owners.
Continue reading “Our DMNC is incomplete?”
The term ‘communism’ has assumed a rigid definition that dooms its realizations to state capitalism, anti-democracy, and command economies. But the term should simply assume that without democracy and robust economies its realization has not occurred. The assumption that bolshevism was an exemplar without protest, by and large, from the marxist left has nearly wrecked the use of the concept nexus altogether.
Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ specifies a complex of properties without which we cannot a communist concept at all.
Source: selections from Democratic Market Neo-communism – 1848: The Ends of History
At a time of crisis in the capitalist system the left is not ready to produce a significant result: every opportunity on the left has resulted in failure because the marxist conceptual basis is flawed.
Continue reading “Search Results for “calculation debate” – 1848: The Ends of History”
In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s evil genius matters less than pressures from the ultrarich, US foreign policy, and the ravages of the neoliberal Yeltsin years.
Source: Russia Beyond Supervillainy
A new book on Putin and Russia, reviewed favorably today at the Guardian, Counterpunch and Jacobin suggests an important read and some essential re-analysis of the Putin/Russia phenomenon. Continue reading “blame game: blaming marxism for Putin…//Russia Beyond Supervillainy”