Were marx’s theories to blame?…//Why Did Socialism Fail?

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?”

Our DMNC is incomplete?

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?”

 Communism and its missing components

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

blame game: blaming marxism for Putin…//Russia Beyond Supervillainy

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”

The complete failure of historical theories (including Marx’s), and a glance at the eonic effect data set…

Marxist claims for a science of history are mostly pseudo-science and we must rush into the fray to challenge the failure of all parties to produce a science of history. The question was actually addressed by such as Karl Popper in his critique of marxist ‘historicism’ but his critique applies just as well to the bourgeois versions of historical science. So-called. There is no such science.
The reason is clear: the issue of free agency enters to falsify all claims for a theory, which is supposedly causal.
Continue reading “The complete failure of historical theories (including Marx’s), and a glance at the eonic effect data set…”

 Up from marxism…will post-marxist socialists get a second chance…?

This situation is sufficiently lamentable, but even more unfortunate is the fact that many people who call themselves Marxists are equally ignorant of the writings of Marx and Engels. In my experience, even many people who consider themselves to be Marxist cadres rarely bother to plumb the depths of Marxist theory in all its richness and variety. All too often they merely skate over the surface, repeating thoughtlessly a few slogans and quotes taken out of context which they have learned by rote, the genuine content of which remains a closed book for them.

Source: Introduction to the Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism – part three


The marxist rubbish peddled ad infinitum at marxist.com has been useful target practice from this source as we have tried to critique Marx, but from the left in a consideration of a neo-communism. Alan Woods is lamenting the public’s ignorance of Marx and Engels but maybe that is an opportunity at a time when it has become essential to recast the platforms of the left into a new version/upgrade. Marx had many insights, e.g. into the emergence of class in civilization, but they all get lost in the rubbish of theory that emerged from the premature sociological analysis so ponderously considered by Marx, who toiled away at the masterwork he was so significantly unable to complete. Leftists would do better to simply leave this literature behind and recast the canon in some new form, mindful to be sure not to betray the projected socialist future with some coopted version, carefully considering the issue of social democracy from Bernstein onward as it arose out of the corpus, still a controversial alternate universe that might preempt real social transformation if we are either seduced or misled, or finally left with it as a last resort. With bolshevism the revolutionary idea simply struck out: we must not contaminate future efforts with its tragic muddle.
It may be too late: at time when we need a sensible transition to a new society marxists and their religion threaten to make a sane future abort in the name of Marx’s theories. Marxists seem unaware of how much people hate marxism/Marx.
The left would have to start over in any case just to get a public hearing.

So while critical of marxism we have tried not to water down the revolutionary implications of socialism emerging from the French Revolution, thence it seems, to be hijacked by Marx/Engels, unless of course we do that with dialectical deliberation (we use the term ‘dialectic’ deliberately in a default meaning: debate, duality, etc…): the Bernie Sanders’ of this age are not ignorable.

Let’s face it, there were a lot of alternate paths to a framework for the left but the domination of Marx is a strange phenomenon in itself. The year is 2018 and still the hopeless muddle of dialectical materialism is being promoted as a foundation in theory for a vast social transformation. It is almost sickening: people were shaking their heads already in the nineteenth century at this Hegelian garbage. Preoccupation with the subject condemns marxists to marginality at this point.
We need to start over and craft an upgrade that leaves behind the term ‘marxism’, addresses the issues of economy, class, socialism in clear language that is empirically based and not cursed with the arrogant pseudo-brilliance of Marx pedants. The Marx/Engels saga of the 1840’s makes a useful historical background with the classic Manifesto as a useful episode and exit point. The whole useless mess of historical materialism/dialectical materialism should not arise again except in a critique of poor theories.
The worst aspect of marxism here is the way its ‘stages of production’ theory has made leftists think socialism is inevitable without specifying in advance what that should be. The result was the bolshevik calamity with the details worked out by Stalin.
Socialists deserve another chance but not if they produce a platform that can’t disentangle from marxism and the idiot cadre of marxist true believers.