What Might an Ecosocialist Society Look Like? – System Change Not Climate Change

Our DMNC model is designed to be able to realize a version or versions of ecosocialism: e.g.
Why can’t the problems that ecosocialism would solve also be remedied within the current global capitalist system?

Source: What Might an Ecosocialist Society Look Like? – System Change Not Climate Change

The Last Revolution beat Jacobin to it…??//Gorbachev Couldn’t Reform the Soviet System — but a Better Socialism Is Possible

I have to wonder if my The Last Revolution isn’t echoing here! It is a comprehensive effort to create a ‘blueprint’ of the kind cited here. In any case, my The Last Revolution (which Jacobin has been informed of invited to download the free copy PDF, I am fairly sure they are aware of it) tries to comprehensively formulate that ‘better socialism’ discussed at Jacobin. They are welcome to consult my text but since I am ‘canceled’ at such places and at Marxmail, etc, …, I doubt if they would deign to communicate. The new commie elite must already be in place complete with embryonic class rebirth….(cf. the editors of all the various leftist magazines and literature…I am not a member with a self-published book, the new route to discussions on the left)…The danger on the left in a revolutionary moment would be the outbreak of violent conflict with crypto-Stalinist marxist cadres who can’t change a single word in Marx…
Some observations: the article never references the fact that a revolutionary change is implied by such a new system (although in my text I certainly allow the reformist alternative). All of this is evidently supposed to just happen…Discussion of revolution and its aftermath is essential along with failsafes against re-Stalinization and derailed revolutionary power…The failures of Marxists have been very stark here. One can’t just pass over the issue in silence
: in my view the whole legacy of Bolshevism PLUS that of Marx needs to be left behind in order to start over. It is important to be clear here because many self-styled agents on the left make a canon dogma of Marxism and the Jacobin ‘Blueprint’ will end up in a hash with Marxist thinking (which remains useful in fragments in the backgroud) and/or denounced as some counterrevolutionary piece and/or …

: The Last Revolution restarts without Marxism, citing only the historical drama of Marx/Engels in the 1848 era… The left needs to get past the whole morass of Marx/Hegel, the failure Marx’s theories, the useless baggage of historical materialism, dialectical materialism…A new socialism needs a new historical framework that is not still more Marx boilerplate and reductionist scientism applied to history in the form of confused economics. The Last Revolution has a new strategy there with a snapshot version of the simple outline in my ‘eonic model’
: The left has to screw up its courage and deal with Darwinism, plus the twin conspiracies of JFK and 9/ll, including the issue of Israel/Mossad and in generatl the crimiinal mafia running the American government and behind the drug trade at the core of the Deep State
: A lot more here, consult the Last Revolution with its plethora of notes, and its own limitations: it needs a more specific ecosocialist project. The DMNC model is a kind of container for ecolotical socialism..
: I may have misjudged the Jacobin people here: this was perhaps just a floater piece, with no intention to reference climate change, etc, etc… But the issue has a new standard in the complexity and detail of the Last Revolution….

In any case despite suspicious caution I welcome any suggestions here despite the fragmenetary nature of the discussion.

In The Blueprint, a book I’m cowriting with Bhaskar Sunkara and Mike Beggs, we lay out an alternative vision that disaggregates the issue of workers’ democracy from the issue of consumer preferences. The most important reason socialists have always advocated democracy at the workplace is that the workplace is the place where most adults have to spend at least half their waking lives most days of the week. No one should have to spend all that time taking orders from bosses over whom they can’t exercise any kind of direct democratic accountability. And the lack of democratic input in deciding what happens to the product of workers’ collective labor — the lack Marxists call “exploitation” — generates an utterly indefensible level of economic inequality.But there’s no reason that democracy at the workplace, and marketless planning of those public goods where markets generate the most socially undesirable consequences, can’t coexist with the use of market mechanisms to solve the information problems that plagued even Gorbachev-era Soviet planners. In the model outlined in our book, full democratic socialism would entail not only domains like health care and education but banks and other commanding heights of the economy would be state-owned. The remaining quasi-private sector would be made up of competing worker-owned cooperatives that would essentially rent the physically means of production from the public as a whole through grants from state-owned banks. When all this is combined with a robust civil society, a free press, and real multiparty elections, it is possible that such a setup could give us a world fundamentally different from both what existed in the Soviet Union and the neoliberal order that’s become globally hegemonic since the USSR’s collapse.

Source: Gorbachev Couldn’t Reform the Soviet System — but a Better Socialism Is Possible

 Gorbachev and the perennial lost opportunities of the Marxist legacy

Gorbachev had a great opportunity but he was unable to take advantage of it and the reason is the failure of the Marxist legacy which consistently misleads everyone who deals with it(including its critics). One winces at the lost potential of the moment and what might have been possible with the new kind of model we have looked at, viz. The DMNC approach which is neither capitalist nor communist but a new way to look at the whole question could have navigated better the idiocy of the Reagans and Thatchers. The sad part is that the sacrifices to achieve expropriation as the classic challenge to private property got thrown away. It was a mistake to have gotten entangled with Reagan and Thatcher, to put it mildly, and whatever the tragic confusions of Bolshevism the solution was not neoliberalism. A close look at the American behavior here shows that the aim wasn’t even capitalism, but the destruction of Russia at the hands of sheer vultures.

Gorbachev could have invented a new form of socialism beyond the utter stupidity of classic Bolshevism: a form of market socialism, a reset of the muddle of planning, etc… The failure of Bolshevism is taken as the failure of socialism, but neither socialism nor communism were every tried in Russia. Never. The whole phantom of Marxism/Leninism was a bum steer from the beginning. We must grant the distortions caused by the great Civil War, but in the period of Gorbachev that wasn’t a factor. Gorbachev was almost on the right track: but social democracy wasn’t the answer either. The Left derived from Marxism forever goofs at the critical moment, and the opportunity lost in the Gorbachev moment is the last greef goof of Marxist idiocy: the path to a real socialism is tricky but in many ways much simpler than the sterile state capitalism spawned in the era of the Bolsheviks.

Russia would not have become a Communist state without Lenin or ceased to be one without Mikhail Gorbachev. At either end of the 20th century, each man played a decisive role in pushing history in a radically new direction it would not have taken otherwise. The path chosen by Gorbachev after he became Soviet leader in 1985 was in some respects more surprising than what Lenin had done in 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution was driven by a terrible war, while Gorbachev’s attempt to modernise and re-energise the Soviet Union was a voluntary choice.

Source: Why Gorbachev Was One of the Greatest Failures in History – CounterPunch.org

Marx’s muddle in the Communist Manifesto…//a sane socialism the last option//…Maybe Civilization Was a Mistake, After All 

Civilization was possibly a mistake. It led to capitalism five hundred years ago, and that was unquestionably, absolutely a mistake.

Source: Maybe Civilization Was a Mistake, After All – CounterPunch.org

__________________

Returning to the state of the hunter gatherer is amusing but could obviously never happen: instead a feudal chaos might overtake the wasteland of capitalism, fronting a host of malevolent forms of domination. In reality the only option is a properly defined neo-socialism where before the entities defined as socialism were nothing of the kind. Bolshevism was a monstrosity and doesn’t discredit socialism because it wasn’t any such thing. Socialism has never been tried because it has been confused by both Bolshevik nutjob socialism and the bad theories of Marx whose work tends to monopolize its definitions, unfairly.

The reality is that socialism has never been tried because no one can reify a realistic model of how it can work. The same fate was that of ‘democracy’ which for centuries was said to be discredited and unworkable.
In fact more realistic definitions of socialism could be both very workable and very popular because they could establish real democracy for the first time. Our multiple models of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ could resolve the issues of social democracy, equality, democratic freedom and postcapitalism with a new kind of democratic social order.
Update: We noted that socialism has never been properly defined. Consider Marx’s Communist Manifesto. He tries several times in different ways to ‘sort of’ define ‘communism.’ One is a list of ten principles:

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

This list has a number of useful suggestions but is incoherent and can only muddle any revolutionary trying to establish a Marxist system as ‘communism’. Some of the eclectic principles are of great interest, but overall little is defined. Note amusingly the wish for a central bank: the US has just that, the Federal Reserve (private owned, to be sure, and which might well be abolished. It is extremely difficult to create a foundation of socialism/communism, and Marx’s achievement was to blast his way past the mystications of the capitalist order, with some initial but incomplete success. The reality is that Marxism never arrived at a procedure for carrying out a postcapitalist transition.
Update 2: Our model of the DMNC (democratic market neo-communism, as ecosocialism) tries to define a ‘neo-communism’ (the older term ‘communism’ is a train wreck and strictly avoided) but explicitly in terms of multiple other concepts. A one-term usage, ‘communism’, is almost always incoherent. Our DMNC might itself have problems but it moves the discussion to a four-term system where multiple concepts are defined together to mutually failsafe a more specific framework. The DMNC makes a complex statement about democracy/authority, markets/planning, a Commons/expropriation (at a high level, and a lower indifference level), and all this in the context of being a container for ecosocialism. This method takes a liberal system and incrementally remorphs it into a neo-communist system. Such a system must define how a revolutionary cadre will create and yield to a democratic assembly (as did the American Rebs, btw).

But however difficult, it IS possible to do this right, for the simple reason that ‘socialism’ is a form of democracy and we have many examples of that.
———–

Civilization was possibly a mistake. It led to capitalism five hundred years ago, and that was unquestionably, absolutely a mistake.

Source: Maybe Civilization Was a Mistake, After All – CounterPunch.org

a sane socialism the last option//…Maybe Civilization Was a Mistake, After All 

Returning to the state of the huner gatherer is amusing but could never happen: instead a feudal chaos might overtake the wasteland of capitalism, fronting a host of malevolent forms of domination. In reality the only option is a properly defined neo-socialism where before the entities defined as socialism were nothing of the kind. Bolshevism was a monstrosity and doesn’t discredit socialism because it wasn’t any such thing. Socialism has never been tried because it has been confused by both Bolshevik nutjob socialism and the bad theories of Marx whose work tends to monopolize its definitions, unfairly.
The reality is that socialism has never been tried because no one can reify a realistic model of how it can work. The same fate was that of ‘democracy’ which for centuries was said to be discredited and unworkable.
In fact more realistic definitions of socialism could be both very workable and very popular because they could establish real democracy for the first time. Our multiple models of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ could resolve the issues of social democracy, equality, democratic freedom and postcapitalism with a new kind of democratic social order.

Civilization was possibly a mistake. It led to capitalism five hundred years ago, and that was unquestionably, absolutely a mistake.

Source: Maybe Civilization Was a Mistake, After All – CounterPunch.org

Chinese/NKorean monstrosities as pseudo-(cancerated) communism…//Can China Rescue Global Capitalism? The Terminal Crisis Unfolds from Sri Lanka to South Africa and Beyond – Communist Workers Group (CWG-USA)

I am no fan of American imperialism, but after Ukraine (and China’s apparent embrace) the Next Great Imperium of the Eurasian Russis/China axis it is obvious the new candidate can only be worse. China can no doubt revive the dead corpse of global capitalism, plus special case value extraction in the vast system of Gulags.

Our idea of the Last Revolution and the Red Fortyeight Group make clear at the start that it disowns Chinese/NKorean pseudo-communism completely and that the capitalist success of China and its vaunted new era dominance creates the danger of global horror at a whole new level.
Our idea of the DMNC as eco-socialist ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is a tool to show on the spot the fallacies of Chinese Frankenstein communism, what to say of North Korea. But China, unlike Russian Bolshevism, nimbly broke out of the market stalemate of Bolshevism and instinctively adopted a (distorted) version of our DMNC: the Chinese saw that markets could enter a ‘communist’ system, albeit as neo-imperialist colonialism in disguise. The problem is (not) thus solved but it shows how a real DMNC could arise with issues of democracy and a revolutionary party mediating power, a real Commons at the basis, and a mixed system of markets based on a Commons using licensed resources next to a planning sector, etc…
The left cannot be bamboozled by China which seeks to infiltrate and dominate the global. The realization that these systems are aberrant must be a central focus.
We advocate dismantling these monstrosities completely.
Meanwhile the US et al. have a final chance at global effect if they can passage to an intelligent postcapitalism with a new International

But Roberts’ reference to ‘state capitalism’ based on Lenin is wrong. Unlike Lenin’s time in Russia, there is no workers’ state in China capable of reining in the private sector. The state rules on behalf of the capitalist ruling class but has ‘special characteristics’ due to China’s history and recent restoration of capitalism after 1992. The central state ruled by the Maoist bureaucracy deliberately reintroduced the law of value to make the old state-owned sector competitive on the global capitalist market. The former CPC bureaucracy was transformed into a capitalist bureaucracy to manage capitalism, allowing it to rule on behalf of collective capital in the global economy characterized by monopoly capital.

Source: Can China Rescue Global Capitalism? The Terminal Crisis Unfolds from Sri Lanka to South Africa and Beyond – Communist Workers Group (CWG-USA)