R48G: the algebra of (virtual, revolutionary) movements on the left: how respond to right-wing militia fascism, as it moves to its coup?

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=R48G%2C+red+forty+eight

Cf our previous post on Orban, Hungary and …!!…the Republican party…
https://redfortyeight.com/2021/10/11/hungarian-style-soft-fascism-is-the-gops-ruthless-new-brand/

The onset of fascism in the US is going sooner or later (sooner than we thought Jan 6) or could sooner than later overpower liberal/left/Gandhian/nonviolent resistance
and make the issue of dissent a dead letter.
It is important to consider something that was present from the start on the left long before the Gandhi era: self-defense and counter-fascism. But those who will non-violence must stand their ground and move in parallel, but without illusions.
Even a cursory look at the legacy of early fascism should remind us that this new right will move to liquidate leftists.

Consider our idea of a (r)evolutionary Red Forty-eight Group, our idea of virtual revolution and to that a new idea: virtual membership in a leftist/socialist formation.
The idea of the Red Forty-eight Groups is that of an algebra of movements in the context of the left since the French Revolution and the idea of the Last Revolution.

In the end, the coming chaos, unless I am imagining that, will produce a situation where the strongest movement will take charge: we need to consider, again as a virtual mental exercise, how the left can defend itself from a fascist state including the covert agencies, Zionist gangsters, heavily armed militias, and … Let’s hope that’s the full list (Putin gang?)

I think that Marxists are a core group despite my incessant ‘harassment’ (via email) but need to reform themselves beyond the label, before the dogmas of Marxism, and beyond as such the legacy of Leninism even as its stock rises again. Review the early phase of Bolshevism and the way it slipped out of control. The place of the covert agencies in our time is going to be deadly.

Virtual membership in the R48 Group as an x referring to the spectrum of lefts from the 1848 period, the Last Revolution.

In fact, we might move from virtual to semi-virtual with our Red Forty-eight Group: a socialist movement of the present/future with a platform such as the ‘democratic market neo-communism’ framework: a hybrid liberal/neo-communist eco-socialist and strong connections to feminism, black lives matter groups, and the larger spectrum of ‘left’ activism.

The US is one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, in the whole of history. This situation so far has made a fascist endgame hjghly likely. So on the left the ‘algebra of movements’ in the spectrum of the Red Forty-eight Group, moves from its virtuality: it’s ‘your move’…

Toward a New Communist Manifesto…//The Communist Manifesto Is Still Haunting the Powerful – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Many attempts at manifestos on the left exist, including mine, which learned early on that one needs to proceed in low key to not compete with the Marx/Engels classic, while at the same time trying to move in a new direction, evidently stealth competition. This theme starts with the last chapter of Last and First Men: Toward a New Communist Manifesto, in fact, later a manifesto called Toward a New Manifesto matched with a new kind of socialist model, Democratic Market Neo-communism. There is finally a text, The Last Revolution, which contains both texts as an appendix.
The left has not really learned what Marx knew, or sensed, that attempting to control the future with a set of utopian blueprints would not work: the future will usually fool us. But Marx’s critique of ‘utopian’ versus ‘scientific’ frameworks doesn’t really work here and the flaws in Marx’s science have created a subtle chaos in all attempts to move into a realized communist future. His stages of production theory makes just this kind of speculative ‘forcing the future’ with its progression of economic epochs. But the future is quirky and moves in strange directions, as the anomalous Russian Bolshevism shows.
The new manifesto and related texts point to this contradiction and then make the ‘mistake’ all over again: grapple with a blueprint for the (near) future, don’t muddle discussion with claims of science, use a simple recipe approach and try to construct a failsafed model that is more than sloganeering and balances democracy, planning and markets, ideas of a Commons and expropriation, and an eco-socialist context added to the post-capitalist approach.
The whole game has been a series of failures but part of the problem is the failures of Marx and Engels to really get straight what they were about.

Source: The Communist Manifesto Is Still Haunting the Powerful – 1848+: The End(s) of History

A post to marxmail with reference to postmarxism and democratic market neo-communism

Toward a new kind of socialism
From: Nemonemini
To: hasc.warrior.stew@gmail.com ; marxmail@groups.io
Date: Fri, Sep 10, 2021 4:01 pm
To say that Marxism is dead may be the wrong way to put it, but what I meant was that while just after Marx/Engels the second international took off globally and was within decades a global foundation for the left. But after 1989 the left has been in a kind of stall. Part of the problem is the cognitive dissonance created by the way a healthy Marxist left in our present uses the same terminology as pseudo-communist China and North Korea, et al. The public is terrified of Marxist thinking for that reason, including most in the working class. The Marxist left has dozens of groups and organizations and none of them can grow. The DSA may be an exception but it is hardly much of a Marxist formation. I consider that any work here needs to respect the reformist/revolutionary distinction or divide and should speak to both. But if that is the strategy then a revolutionary perspective will end up slightly dominant over the other. I often speak of ‘virtual’ revolution which seems to mean we can calm the nerves of nervous nellies in the reformist wing by taking revolution as a potential possibility that we must study carefully. But the time of revolutionary action may soon come. Noone expected the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Civil War, or the Bolshevik revolution. They happened on their own and it wasn’t until the Bolshevik case that an outstanding leftist group was at hand to accomplish socialist transformation. But the latter failed. Russia wasn’t really the right place to start as many awaited anxiously for a German revolution, which never took place. Continue reading “A post to marxmail with reference to postmarxism and democratic market neo-communism”

 DMNC and democracy in relation to socialism

Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ or a liberalism remorphed as (neo-)communism (or neo-socialism) and vice versa requires seeing that democracy in fact requires a kind of socialism, as this article from CP makes clear.

The supreme value of democratic republicanism is freedom, which can only be possible if the whole population enjoys the material conditions of freedom. Since poverty also entails dependence on the arbitrary dictates of others, social isolation, and the resulting vicious circle of physical and mental damage, it’s more than a matter of a bit of redistributive justice but must be actively eradicated. And freedom isn’t just about equality of resources. It requires reciprocity in freedom, which is only possible in a society where the political institutions recognize the civil equality of all its members who, then, must all have the status of materially independent social actors or equality of conditions.

Source: Republicanism For The Anthropocene – CounterPunch.org

R48G: Postcapitalist Futures: work in progress…Greta Thunberg appears to call for revolution…critiques of Marxism…

The crisis we face is generating a sense that postcapitalism is the only option. Many say this in the mode of Common Dreams or Counterpunch, or Marxmail but noone can really think about the revolutionary options, its dangers and potentials, and the failure of any section of the left to really think through what is needed.
I am too old to start a revolutionary movement but have produced abundant materials for thinking about that. In the age of POD books one can evade peer reviewed boilerpate literature and speak one’s mind and produce a paperback or PDF very quickly. Below is an ersatz quick book in progress summarizing some previous work. One would think that the realm of Marxism would have something to contribute here and the literature there is stunning, and yet none of it is suitable at a revolutionary threshold, a stupefying realization: here are some of the reasons:
Marxism spawned the Second Internationale and then the Leninist Bolshevik revolution which devolved into Stalinism. Dead duck, sorry.
Any attempt to use the standard corpus in the same language used by Stalinists, North Korea, or Chinese communists will cause massive cognitive dissonance and attempted take over and liquidation of the whole Common dreams staff. The Chinese system killed one million capitalists at the start. We don’t want to go that route. Continue reading “R48G: Postcapitalist Futures: work in progress…Greta Thunberg appears to call for revolution…critiques of Marxism…”

Afghanistan: DMNC: ‘democratic market neo-communism’

Two Manifestos

Our idea of democratic market neo-communism is perfectly adapted to the kind of situation we see in Afghanistan. The ideas of democracy or socialism taken alone are not. The idea of democracy has suffered semantic chaotification and metal fatigue has set in. The Americans seem to think they have a democracy, which is laughable.
Our DMNC is a way to model social constructs and no doubt has its own limits. But the core concepts could allow a social construct that is functional at any stage of any social system/economy. Marxism enjoined the need to have a capitalist stage before a socialist or communist one. Surely that’s wrong, and the Bolshevik example correctly disregarded that but they couldn’t really manifest any part of their Marxist projections

Our DMNC can work at any point in any social system, and could even discuss a band of hunter-gatherers. That’s outlandish but in any case the point is that the construct can model systems with or without capitalism. It was a fiasco of wrong analysis to think that a stage of capitalism must precede socialism/communism (we don’t distinguish the terms). In the DMNC approach socialism and markets emerge together in parallel with a planning aspect in equal parallel. And that in the construct of a Commons, which requires a legal construct that makes equal participation in resources a matter of law with their own courts. It is not a form of state capitalism. The Commons is balanced with a set of economic rights. The corporate construct is easy to adapt here: social market managers (formerly capitalists) can license resources from the Commons and might even be able to bid for resources as shares, while in parallel other corporate types can operate with a high degree of planning. This is a multivalent system, therefore. The construct is democratic with a parliament, scrap the oligarchic Senate (or else…?).
This kind of system could be applied to Afghanistan tomorrow, and would work save only that the US has no intention of allowing anything beyond their muddle of fascist/imperialist domination.
This construct is matched with a variant system that expresses the idea of ecological socialism with its own legal add-ins.
The point here is that we can start with this kind of balanced tinkertoy model that can serve to visualize potentials and warn us of traps and create something more robust than hollow concepts of democracy or socialism.
There is a lot more here, but the basic format can apply any and all possible starting points, medievalist, feudalism, capitalism, archaic socialism (!) and reconstruct a new system in those contexts. The old versions of working-class revolutions require recasting, not hard to do, but the idea that the working class should take total control was unexpectedly flawed. But we can work this into a working-class model at the drop of a hat. The working class is a version a version of James Joyce’s HCE, ‘here comes everybody’ and if everyone who is a passive entity under capitalism is working-class then indeed HCE.
Note that this system re-contains, or re-applies multiple potentials in parallel, and in one version has an indifference level below which control top-down is marginal.

This is the kind of so-called utopian system rejected by Marx who preached scientific socialism, but a science here would have to construct a model, more ‘utopian’ thinking on the way to science. The distinction was pernicious and confused all discussions. Our model is neither scientific or not: it is not utopian in the speculative sense but a realistic remorphing of a liberal system under a commons, i.e. the expropriation of social resources into a general pool.

The US will never get Afghanistan right. An agency like the UN might well be able to oversee but not control a revolutionary restart as our DMNC.
Our thinking no doubt is still limited and one missing element is an international. We need something more than one country/one socialism but that said our DMNC can go either way: socialism in one country and/or an international.

Nope, let’s forget bolshevism, marx and start over…why did the early french socialists invent ‘socialism’….//Socialists Should Take the Right Lessons From the Russian Revolution

I have come to advocate simply deleting the Bolshevik, even the Marxist legacy, a less drastic resolution than it might seem. This fascinating article is however a reminder that no matter how many times I try to get the Bolshevik case straight, I fail and stand corrected by a new book, research or recalculation. I have thus learned the hard way that the post-Marx era leading into the era of Bolshevism is impossible to get straight. One must find a project to realize in the present, having started over.
One will do better to let it slide into the black hole that it is and to try and find a new set of categories along socialist lines. In fact this experience soon extends to the figures of Marx and Engels whose brilliant work belies the fact that they got mostly everything wrong (and a lot of things right). A core issue is Marx’s view of history and the useless historical materialism. The historical myth of feudalism, capitalism communism has confused every generation and is patently inaccurate and mythological. The idea that a Marxist group will rewrite culture using historical materialism is a futile hope, and looking closely see that socialism never gets off the ground, and that Bolshevism is mostly a distraction.
So what to do? It should suddenly work to take specific models and see how they might be realized. The idea of socialism is too abstract. But the moment we go from one-term systems to more specific constructions the whole past fantasy world of socialism starts to take form, finally.
The idea of democratic market neo-communism is an example. Suddenly the reality of a socialist, or here ‘neo-communist’ construct springs to life, because we have abandoned useless abstractions and moved to ask how we can realize a given model under the axioms of expropriation. This is not the reformist/revolution debate although that remains relevant: or model offers two interpretations, one for reformist, one for revolutionaries. You can have congress that could expropriate private property, or a revolution to top down our DMNC. In each case the core option is the lesson programmer’s learn: remorph what you have incrementally and then debug it. Here we start with a liberal system and remorph it into a neo-communism. That’s more than reformism, a different issue.

The point is that Marxism has made the whole subject impossibly complicated and dependent on an elite proposing to decipher Marx and then Lenin.

Our DMNC could be realized in a short period of time and be functional with a decent economy and political system. It is the recipe approach, not theory abstractions. We might just forget Marx and Lenin, and start to get practical.

Socialists have rightly taken inspiration from the Russian Revolution for generations, but many of the lessons drawn from it are wrong for our own time. To make change today, we need to take democratic socialism seriously as a theory and practice.

Source: Socialists Should Take the Right Lessons From the Russian Revolution

 update: ////‘Communism’ strikes out in Cuba, but capitalism will not solve the problem. Whore houses and casinos are the main interest of those yankees? 

One more post on Cuba. First, do not trust the US. The US destroyed your economy with sanctions to prove that socialism doesn’t work. That’s a fraud plus, and a crime against cuban humanity. Who am I to advise anyone. But the powers that be are so stupid that even with a few points of mental X plus, I come out ahead, stupid, but less so. But the real issue here is finding some exit strategy that is better than capitalism or communism. No matter how hard they try Cubans will still be exploited by ye old Yankees. The double problem here is that capitalism will prove a debt trap, you have to borrow money while the older communism is run by an older marxism that is a monopoly of hopeless idiots. I have been suggesting a new model, DMNC, for several years, but the powers that be control larger opinion, where a blogger as here can’t really get past ten thousand readers a year and stay honest. Throw in Darwin critique and you are de facto censored. Note then that solutions exist, but the elite is far too stupid to get out of a rut, and the capitalist obsession makes it impossible. A simple set of answers exist but they won’t get past the brain-dead capitalist and/or pseudo-communist thugs/elites.
Cubans lost sixty years to pseudo-communism. They should have been a thriving socialism by now. What could work is the kind of hybrid we suggest that is planned, neo-communist, with a new kind of market, the socialist market, They can license resources to socialist entrepreneurs and thrive, with a system tries to harmonize opposites. But the current elites are too far in the past to remedy anything. Noone can give any advice. Scholars, journalists, who to say of politicians, can’t advise you, left or right. Economists can’t advise you: neoclassic economics is an outright fraud. Note that China sailed just past our DMNC model and then didn’t brake. The result was super fast development and otherwise a hopless mess, and dangerous types who think nothing of mass murder. So forget China.
But Cuba should stay on top of its prior expropriation and create a hybrid planned market system. But the elite pseudo-communists have to create democracy of some kind and they can’t be trusted on that. But sill it is possible for another hybrid: in one version we had a four party state:: a congress or parliament of three parties and a fourth party of a communist party also a presidential party. It is job is to guard the Commons. This fourth party is a sort of thought experiment in the duality democracy/authority. The latter is too tricky perhaps, but a useful exercise. Its members can never own property and must be a dedicated elite and one that can cede powers to the larger. That of course they will never do, perhaps. There are several variants. But the American rebs, with a sneaky elite in the background, ceded power to a constitutional succession. So who knows. It is a bad situation for mankind. You can’t trust politicians, you can’t trust communists, you can’t trust capitalists, you can’t trust the Pope or Christian control freaks, you can’t trust economists. So you are on your own. I fear the communist power elite in Cuba is too far gone to figure the way out. And the capitalist hyaenas are ready and waiting.

The point here is that answers are possible, but no one in the usual circles can figure out what they doing. This kind of system needs and international, but the confusions possible mount.

Source: ‘Communism’ strikes out in Cuba, but capitalism will not solve the problem. Whore houses and casinos are the main interest of those yankees? – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Taking on poor old Fox news capitalist dementia head on…//Democratic socialists ignore Cuban protesters railing against communist dictatorship | Fox News

Poor old Fox news: boilerplate against socialists sounds more and more hollow. The Foxers were right until history slips away, and leaves capitalism high and dry. Socialism is suddenly starting to look inevitable, as long as Marxists don’t wreck the last chance. But the force of reactionary strongholds isn’t going to go away based on reason. The strange and tragic damage done by an idiot such as Trump has brought out in the open a US one didn’t quite knew existed. Trumpism is breaking new record for ‘hopeless idiocy’ in denouncing vaccination. Our DMNC model is just that, a model, but one that could work the first day. Marxsm is completely stuck on an obsolete version of pseudo-communism

Anti-government protests broke out Sunday in Cuba demanding freedom and calling on an end to the country’s communist dictatorship, and yet some of the U.S.’s most outspoken Democratic socialists seem to be in lockstep by not acknowledging the historic events unfolding on the island about 90 miles from Florida.

Source: Democratic socialists ignore Cuban protesters railing against communist dictatorship | Fox News

  Cuba Protests: Nationwide Unrest as Covid-19 Pandemic Increases Hunger – YouTube

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=cuba+DMNC

I have often been supportive but critical of Cuba’s communism.
In fact, as we can see Cuba wasn’t what we thought it was.
Another Marxist fraud protected by propaganda and sentimental leftists.

We have over and over again suggested the need for a new post-Marxist approach.
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ (as ecosocialism) allows a new path to
experimental socialist construction that can actually produce a decent economy
and bypasses the hopeless jackknife effect of ‘communism’ and ‘(liberal/capitalist) democracy’.
This model is only that, but it has the strength that if ordinary liberal capitalism can work then
this new system should also work. Cuba is still another casualty of marxist idiots. The resolution is
utterly simple, perhaps too simple but easily extended with new legal systems, checks and balances and the fundamentals
of expropriation… The effect of planning and socialist markets is almost overkill: but this approach take of the possibilities and
asks us to unite a complete set of opposites in one system