Our model in some ways resembles Fromm’s vision but now we confront the grim realization of the revolutionary path needed to transition to postcapitalism, and its prospects seem at first hopeless. In fact, it would seem rather the case that the revolution is coming willy-nilly as possible system collapse as we watch the lunatics of government paralyzed, corrupt, capitalist stooges. The revolution can take a saner form as explicit revolutionary action rising to meet the ‘revolution’. Unfortunately the Marxist monopoly of thought without action is partly in the way. We propose our Red Forty-eight Group as an umbrella concept or algebra of movements: start to think immediately of the path through the chaos coming and the fascist devolution of capitalist controlled pseudo-government in place. In fact, we done just that: let X be the Red Forty-eight Group, a social-democratic construct! We have moved from Fromm’s fantasy to a realizable post-Marxist version of a realizable and efficient economy beyond private property and capital, with a constitutional format whose first stage is a transitional first version as our ‘democratic market neo-communism’. Continue reading “R48G: The Sane Revolution….?//The Sane Society? “
From The Last Revolution…
Defining a Commons:
Industrial, Ecological, Global
We posit the creation of a Commons in a given DMNC model economy and this can have multiple aspects: an industrial and an ecological Commons. The status of this to start will be an enclosed Commons in a nation state, and regulated by independent socialist orgs next to the open socialist market of industrial organization. This situation is not state socialism and will mix planning and markets using resources licensed from the Commons. In many cases a given entity by definition in the Commons can be left to the stewardship of a former owner, and limited at the low scale under the threshold indifference level of the ‘DMNC’ nexus. Thus any number of independent entities small-scale can be left to, ironic term, laissez-faire in a relative degree of higher regulation, but really (semi-) independent micro-entities under the umbrella. The ecological Commons must be a precision ecosocialist constellation of macro-agroeconomy, lower indifference levels of small farms under ecological watch and climate friendly larger scale industrial agriculture (if any). The issues of home owner ship and samll businesses might be at scale left to the lower indifference, level but subject to the ongoing creation of Communes using housing entities purchased by the larger Commons piece meal.
The definition of the Commons has an ambiguity as to a global Commons and the need to move toward a federated union of socialist states in a range of still possibly capitalist holdovers. At some point in the creation of New International the issue of a global Commons will be subject to constitutional/treaty arbitration moving to a real global entity that can manage global industrial interactions in the flow like archaic capital of shared resources localized but open to extereior international status.
Over and over we have seen the way the politics of the left bifurcates in two directions, as we see here with the leftist liberalism contrasts with explicit socialism. In fact, Venezuela is in limbo because the ‘Bolivarian revolution’ isn’t really socialist. But the point is that the DMNC model shows the way to unite the opposites into one model: we have a liberal system remorphed as socialist. Which implies that the system has expropriated capital in the large. That’s a stark requirement, but without that the result simply struggles against the visible/invisible enemy of global capital and is hard-pressed to find a path beyond muddle.
Isn’t it possible to construct such as system while leaving capital alone? Since these cases are condemned to try we can’t reject the possibility out of hand, but the reality is that our model is and remains a basic liberal system in which capital in the large enters a Commons. But while this is too difficult under most circumstances our model seems up in the air. Indeed, but the reality is that the left has been kicked around in the result of its own compromises. Cuba achieved this, but still fails our definition because it is basically an oligarchic ‘communist’ elite at work, dictatorship of the Marxist bourgeosie, Cuba’s hidden hypocrisy and ‘communism manque’, in our sense of requiring socialist democracy, else it is not democracy. We will one suspects enter a period of revolutionary potential in unstable times: it is important to have a new model beyond the Marxist which has always confused all parties at the crucial moment. But against our view it remains the case that the idea of the Commons as against state ownership requires a legal framework, not so hard to produce, but so far, our abstraction.
The Marxist left gets off scot-free from the legacy of Bolshevism but Marxists should in honor take responsibility for their legacy and consider the way the limits of Marx, of Marxism, of Lenin, of Bolshevism, of Stalin, and the endgame with a Putin are all of a piece and that the calamity keeps on giving with the super idiocy of the Ukraine mess. It is almost impossible to create a democracy in that confusion (and as we see Ukraine almost pulled it off). Russia was cursed from the start with the refusal of Marx to make explicit his intentions and the result is the fast track to Stalinism. And the absence of a liberal bourgeois legacy of democratic revolution left it prey to all sorts of plug-the-void monstrosities, topped off with a Stalinist coup de grace. Putin inherits that hidden hatred of democracy that ended up distorting Bolshevism.
Strange as it might seem our DMNC model can help here: it is only a tool beside any actual realization in practice and it works just as well with trainwrecks as with up and coming bourgeois capitalist cases. From that angle, the only solution to the Russian case is some form of ‘democratic socialism’ after the manner of our model which is more than those two terms and the distorted versions now current. But the point is that democracy isn’t going to work in Russia, and Bolshevism is certainly a dead duck. But the DMNC model is a sort of trompe l’oeil in a benign sense that creates an honest hybrid that is a liberal system remorphed into a socialist neo-communism and vice versa.
Russians surely detest Bolshevik communism, but as events have shown the passage to democracy aborted even as the expropriated elements of state capitalism were dissipated most unwisely into the pockets of the oligarchs. Start over and do it again, but do it right this time. In that context democracy will start to take root, a sane economy based on our market neo-communism with a Commons can produce a robust economic foundation and with a view to passing beyond oil addiction. The model can help where the subject is allergic to democracy and has suffered terminal brain death from Bolshevik super idiocy. That requires another revolution, but in a way, that revolution has a history as a starting point. Put away the Marxist legacy and start over with a new script, and inch up to what in the end is probably the last resort for post-communist derelicts like the Russian case. Although I have spent two decades critiquing ‘end of history’ arguments, now I sometimes wonder, but the ‘end’ seeks a hybrid, you can’t go backwards, but what is backwards, doemocracy or socialism: an ex-Bolshevik failure doesn’t preempt the coming future beyond liberal capitalism which is competing at the endgame with barbarism, and NOT democratic so-called capitalism a la the Yankee doodledopia now starting into its evening gloom and probable endstate barbarism in an alt-fascist garbage dump. The future demands getting democracy right, but perhaps that as we see now requires socialism to make it work.
Source: The Left in Purgatory
This lament resonates with our take here on neo-communism, but the overall stance of this ‘sort of’ a left might benefit from our discussions of the Last Revolution. There is no mystery to the socialists in the US being stuck (and they may be stuck almost everywhere, in fact): the core of the ‘ancient left’ from the nineteenth century had a Marxist driver that is now dysfunctional and too dated, plus, that foundation remains to hold back new thinking. Groups who consider themselves reformists have shown far more creative activism than the moribund zombies of Marxism. But they don’t have the horsepower to really be activists for change, unable to examine their own choice to be impotent. Let’s look at the reality: a capitalist system that is a de facto totalitarian economics won’t yield to reformist efforts, period. Continue reading “The Left in Purgatory”
We referenced Chile and socialism already a few hours ago: we can list a set of issues that emerged from the so-called ‘DMNC’ model: ‘democratic market neo-communism’. This is in fact either a blank outline of an actual ‘socialist’ construct and/or a tool to model the different options in moving toward socialism.
Chile has a complex history and present, one is hardly in a position to deal with unfamiliar contexts. But the DMNC model has a set of useful reminders:
democracy is key but the definition of democracy is always up in the air, a socialist recombination can invoke ‘democratic socialism’ or our neo-communism (we don’t distinguish socialism and communisms.
step one is expropriation of Capital in the large, if that is possible
this requires defining a Commons which is different from state ownership
the dilemma over markets and planning is false: markets can exist in a socialist context
IF they operate with resources licensed from a Commons. The whole useless debate over
markets and planning can be bypassed. But planning is obvious another aspect and is coming into its own.
We have dozens of post essays on the DMNC model… :
Be wary of Marxism: it has given bum steers to generations of leftists.
Marx/Engels’ classic manifesto is all that is needed. The rest must be done by starting over.
Our DMNC model is a mold that can print out dozens of variants socialisms.
The DMNC model allows a threshold indifference level and allows a spectrum of options.
The connection of democracy, socialism in the large and expropriation has never been done right.
It is best of luck, at best…
These discussions are of great interest but two aspects are neglected: the issue of American (and other) mis-definitions of democracy, and the void that has overtaken the left. The American system has never really been truly democratic as an electoral system dominated by capitalism. It is thus almost surely doomed to drift into breakdown even without the pressure of an increasingly demented right. This article makes no mention of the capitalist factor. And secondly there is no left as such anymore. The failure of Marxism, and yet its persistence as a dominating factor, has paralyzed thinking about socialism and democracy as the legacy of Marx/Lenin/Stalinism has clearly failed to produce any kind of (r)evolutionary response to the growing right unchallenged by any consistent of coherent response to capitalism as such. The jargon of Marx doesn’t work anymore and yet it has a cultic tenacity that defeats all innovation.
We have produced our modeling tool: ‘democratic market neo-communism’ and that in the context the issues of eco-socialism. Despite the failure of Marx’s theories, he and his generation of early socialists who he expropriated and dominated, had a keen insight into the weakness of bourgeois democracies, and the corrosive effect of capitalism. But that legacy fractured as democracy and socialism became antagonists, and by the time of Lenin, democracy didn’t stand a chance against totalitarian outcomes. The whole legacy is ‘shot’ and our draft text The Last Revolution tries to start over from scratch, not so hard to do.
The left is clearly split between those who preach democracy/reformism and the nullity of the Marx dominated left who have lost any sense of a coherent program.
The right’s ‘coup in motion’ needs a strong response from an ‘in principle’ revolutionary left (that can also carry the reformist sectors piggyback) that has a new set of materials, a new definition of democracy, a socialist guarantee (our neo-communism is basically ‘socialism’ 2.0, a hybrid with democracy so-called…etc…)
Unless a strong left able in principle to carry out regime change, and do it right, can challenge the new right, the latter will simply walk away with the crown jewels.
The U.S. is becoming increasingly ungovernable, and some experts believe it could descend into civil war. What should Canada do then?