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

 Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution, updated

update: This argument is perhaps too tricky, and we failed to consider that eonic emergents inside transitions tend to resurface in the mideonic period. ‘Revolutions’ are an innovation in world history, in part because change must transform already existing forms, usually in decline. Kant unwitting points to the process (which ended up in the confusing ‘end of history’ argumentof Hegel): his essay on history points to or asks for evidence for ‘the progression toward a perfect constitution’, etc… The eonic effect shows this directly and also the two attempts starting in Ancient Greece. Note that in both cases democracy seeds just at or before the ‘divide’, Solon ca. 600 BCE and in the American and French case (which is confusing and seems to fail and never makes quite clear what it was about) 1800 BCE. In ancient Greece the process remains murky until suddenly in the fifth century we see a democracy in action, it suffers tragedy by the end of the fifth to fourth (is that accurate?).
Note that ‘democracy’ is one of the favorite children of the eonic series and it must be utterly frustrated in the modern case with its American instance, already it seems a failure. But modern times has endless failsafe and exemplars that can carry the future.
But as we have noted and as Marx discussed it well, the democratic format is vulnerable to capture by capitalism, born in the modern case we suggest almost the same time as democracy, at the divide at the Industrial Revolution point. A spectacular conjunction. If we can rescue Marx from his confusions of theory his analysis is very apt and/or taken from the early socialists just before him, and suggests that democracy with a socialist blend can be ‘real democracy’. But his later theories muddled the whole question with a theory of history.
We have been hard on Hegel and he seems to belie or confuse his Kantian beginning but his argument seems to grasp what the eonic process shows clearly: we confront in world history something that can act anywhere anytime and direct somehow the evolution of freedom and the issue of triads enters from earlier mystics and, and, …Marx reaction toward materialism is cogent but doesn’t really establish itself as historical theory.
As to the eonic effect we have a useful tool freed of theistic confusions or hegelian ‘geist’, and confusions of reductionist scientism, but we don’t really know what it is, but we can detect from its spectacular non-coincidental instances its mysterious action. The case of democracy is a good example and it leaves a strange signature: ‘free action’ before the divide shows system action, a kind of push or direction at lower degree of freedom and then becomes free action proper at a higher degree of freedom. Like the third wheel on a child’s bike: the third wheel lowers the degree of freedom so the child can learn, but then the third wheel is removed as the child gains a higher degree of freedom (to ride the bike).
This analogy resembles the ‘induced’ democracy and the subsequence actual democracy in the eonic series. Can man pass the test? The US as current looks fairly hopeless.
Marx wanted ‘materialism’ but as we have shown there is a whole range of such, one being (as in our Sankhya, ancient and modern) of the Samkhya brand, which was actually to end up in the Christian brand in a preposterous blend that suggests ‘atheist Christianity’ was actually an original viewpoint.
We could rewrite Hegel as Samkhya materialism, to a chorus of howls of protest.
______________________

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x

Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution

This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model.

The point is the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ in the phase of ‘eonic transitions’. Suddenly we get an insight into the difficulty the left has had with ‘revolutions’. There is (apparently) a distinction of revolutions with system action, like the French or American Revolutions and revolutions of free agency, like the Russian revolution. There is a lot so say here, but we might simply note that there is something obvious here with respect to the Russian case which suffered a confusion of democratic revolution and communist evolution. Everyone has always noted some anomalous about Bolshevism.
Marx’s attempt to make the case that a future revolution against capitalism on the way to communism will be the result of an historical dynamic in the sense of historical materialism is bad science and a source of great confusion for the left.
Clearly, future revolutions require careful deliberation over the nature of freely created revolutionary outcomes, a very difficult task and the reason the left tends to be stymied. But as the world system closes in on capitalism and ecological calamity immense care needs to be set on the issue without the bad science of Marxist ‘historical materialism’. Men have to freely create revolutionary change mindful of the ‘Murphy’s law’ effect that have occurred even in the earlier era.

That said, it is easy to see why Marx got confused here. The first transitions of the early modern are the Reformation  and the proto-communism of Munzer in the early sixteenth century just after Luther, a key deliberation of Engles.  Let us note that the first revolutionary nexus of modern times, beside the Reformation, was communism which preceeds even the the democratic revolutions. Note the way the gestating democracy of the English Civil war suffered chaotification and the whole phase passed into the suddenly conservatizing if not reactionary era of the Restorian, the classical case of coopted bourgois revolution passing into the era of the Parliament.

For Bastille Day, we have answers to a bunch of questions about the French Revolution.

Source: A Guide to the French Revolution

 Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution, updated

update: This argument is perhaps too tricky, and we failed to consider that eonic emergents inside transitions tend to resurface in the mideonic period. ‘Revolutions’ are an innovation in world history, in part because change must transform already existing forms, usually in decline. Kant unwitting points to the process (which ended up in the confusing ‘end of history’ argumentof Hegel): his essay on history points to or asks for evidence for ‘the progression toward a perfect constitution’, etc… The eonic effect shows this directly and also the two attempts starting in Ancient Greece. Note that in both cases democracy seeds just at or before the ‘divide’, Solon ca. 600 BCE and in the American and French case (which is confusing and seems to fail and never makes quite clear what it was about) 1800 BCE. In ancient Greece the process remains murky until suddenly in the fifth century we see a democracy in action, it suffers tragedy by the end of the fifth to fourth (is that accurate?).
Note that ‘democracy’ is one of the favorite children of the eonic series and it must be utterly frustrated in the modern case with its American instance, already it seems a failure. But modern times has endless failsafe and exemplars that can carry the future.
But as we have noted and as Marx discussed it well, the democratic format is vulnerable to capture by capitalism, born in the modern case we suggest almost the same time as democracy, at the divide at the Industrial Revolution point. A spectacular conjunction. If we can rescue Marx from his confusions of theory his analysis is very apt and/or taken from the early socialists just before him, and suggests that democracy with a socialist blend can be ‘real democracy’. But his later theories muddled the whole question with a theory of history.
We have been hard on Hegel and he seems to belie or confuse his Kantian beginning but his argument seems to grasp what the eonic process shows clearly: we confront in world history something that can act anywhere anytime and direct somehow the evolution of freedom and the issue of triads enters from earlier mystics and, and, …Marx reaction toward materialism is cogent but doesn’t really establish itself as historical theory.
As to the eonic effect we have a useful tool freed of theistic confusions or hegelian ‘geist’, and confusions of reductionist scientism, but we don’t really know what it is, but we can detect from its spectacular non-coincidental instances its mysterious action. The case of democracy is a good example and it leaves a strange signature: ‘free action’ before the divide shows system action, a kind of push or direction at lower degree of freedom and then becomes free action proper at a higher degree of freedom. Like the third wheel on a child’s bike: the third wheel lowers the degree of freedom so the child can learn, but then the third wheel is removed as the child gains a higher degree of freedom (to ride the bike).
This analogy resembles the ‘induced’ democracy and the subsequence actual democracy in the eonic series. Can man pass the test? The US as current looks fairly hopeless.
Marx wanted ‘materialism’ but as we have shown there is a whole range of such, one being (as in our Sankhya, ancient and modern) of the Samkhya brand, which was actually to end up in the Christian brand in a preposterous blend that suggests ‘atheist Christianity’ was actually an original viewpoint.
We could rewrite Hegel as Samkhya materialism, to a chorus of howls of protest.
______________________

Decoding World History ED1_dwh1x

Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution

This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model.

The point is the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ in the phase of ‘eonic transitions’. Suddenly we get an insight into the difficulty the left has had with ‘revolutions’. There is (apparently) a distinction of revolutions with system action, like the French or American Revolutions and revolutions of free agency, like the Russian revolution. There is a lot so say here, but we might simply note that there is something obvious here with respect to the Russian case which suffered a confusion of democratic revolution and communist evolution. Everyone has always noted some anomalous about Bolshevism.
Marx’s attempt to make the case that a future revolution against capitalism on the way to communism will be the result of an historical dynamic in the sense of historical materialism is bad science and a source of great confusion for the left.
Clearly, future revolutions require careful deliberation over the nature of freely created revolutionary outcomes, a very difficult task and the reason the left tends to be stymied. But as the world system closes in on capitalism and ecological calamity immense care needs to be set on the issue without the bad science of Marxist ‘historical materialism’. Men have to freely create revolutionary change mindful of the ‘Murphy’s law’ effect that have occurred even in the earlier era.

That said, it is easy to see why Marx got confused here. The first transitions of the early modern are the Reformation  and the proto-communism of Munzer in the early sixteenth century just after Luther, a key deliberation of Engles.  Let us note that the first revolutionary nexus of modern times, beside the Reformation, was communism which preceeds even the the democratic revolutions. Note the way the gestating democracy of the English Civil war suffered chaotification and the whole phase passed into the suddenly conservatizing if not reactionary era of the Restorian, the classical case of coopted bourgois revolution passing into the era of the Parliament.

For Bastille Day, we have answers to a bunch of questions about the French Revolution.

Source: A Guide to the French Revolution

 DMNC and the puzzle of the russian revolution

Although we have adopted a critique of Marxism, and stand wary at ‘theory’ the issues in the history of the left present a set of puzzles for our new perspective. We have spoken to both reformist and revolutionary viewpoints, but the reformist stance is misleading: we can stage a revolution via reformist stance, however unlikely, if ‘reform’ can move to change a constitution and/or expropriate capital. The latter seems implausible but nationalizations actually occurred in the English Labor era, etc…The revolutionary path is equally tricky and this article on the issue of revolution, and the case of Lenin present, and warn of the immensely tricky steps to any kind of socialist/communist, in our case the neo-communism of our DMNC. Despite these differences we can in many ways simply substitute our model into the deliberations of the Lenin era. It is rare that anyone left or right can navigate this history of the Russian Revolution. Our stance is that ‘if only’ the Bolsheviks/marxists had had a better vision of a socialist outcome on the grounds of democracy, markets, planning, state capitalism/a Commons, and the relationship of a revolutionary party to a democratic party. All that said this by the book article by marxists shows how we need to be wary of socialist realizations, in the context of revolution. Another issue is that of the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin correctly/incorrectly took this notion to heart and he must have thought there was no contradiction in his claim to take the stance he represented the working class. At the start the mysterious constellation of factors seems to justify that but the whole game ended in failure. The term should be retired. But as this article makes clear a truly tricky set of factors were at play and Lenin, often accused of a coup, in fact moved in the context of working class thematics and in terms of the actual orgs thus in the working class ‘soviets’ to seize the moment. In the end our DMNC version would confront this tricky navigation though a complex chess puzzle. It seems that Lenin was successful but then the limits of the Marxist model moved to derail the remarkable revolutionary fait-accompli. But the Marxist package was anemic and the result in the end was hardly a working class soon again the exploited victim in the victim in the coming of Stalin.The democratic failsafe wasn’t there.

We have and again yesterday confronted the worsening crisis and noted how the justification for revolution starts to creep back into the reformist complacency. Revolution is becoming a duty having just watched a fascist wannabee liquidate 600,000 citizens. But the elder situation is far different: Russia simply fell apart as the army nearly dissolved as soldiers threw down their rifles and trekked home, in the horror of World War I which was the real ‘revolution’ by accident. The American military will sooner move to fascism than radicalize and the issue of ecology in the era of global warming moves swiftly past Marxist cliches to demand a whole new rethinking. The future here could be a fascist military, liquidation of the left, and bunkers in Sweden for the capitalist remnant. Capitalist mass murder can now move from six hundred thousand to a hundred million.
Capitalism has ceased to take humanity forward. It should long ago have been overthrown by the working class.

Source: The class, the party and the leadership: How to organize revolution

 DMNC and the puzzle of the russian revolution

Although we have adopted a critique of Marxism, and stand wary at ‘theory’ the issues in the history of the left present a set of puzzles for our new perspective. We have spoken to both reformist and revolutionary viewpoints, but the reformist stance is misleading: we can stage a revolution via reformist stance, however unlikely, if ‘reform’ can move to change a constitution and/or expropriate capital. The latter seems implausible but nationalizations actually occurred in the English Labor era, etc…The revolutionary path is equally tricky and this article on the issue of revolution, and the case of Lenin present, and warn of the immensely tricky steps to any kind of socialist/communist, in our case the neo-communism of our DMNC. Despite these differences we can in many ways simply substitute our model into the deliberations of the Lenin era. It is rare that anyone left or right can navigate this history of the Russian Revolution. Our stance is that ‘if only’ the Bolsheviks/marxists had had a better vision of a socialist outcome on the grounds of democracy, markets, planning, state capitalism/a Commons, and the relationship of a revolutionary party to a democratic party. All that said this by the book article by marxists shows how we need to be wary of socialist realizations, in the context of revolution. Another issue is that of the concept of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin correctly/incorrectly took this notion to heart and he must have thought there was no contradiction in his claim to take the stance he represented the working class. At the start the mysterious constellation of factors seems to justify that but the whole game ended in failure. The term should be retired. But as this article makes clear a truly tricky set of factors were at play and Lenin, often accused of a coup, in fact moved in the context of working class thematics and in terms of the actual orgs thus in the working class ‘soviets’ to seize the moment. In the end our DMNC version would confront this tricky navigation though a complex chess puzzle. It seems that Lenin was successful but then the limits of the Marxist model moved to derail the remarkable revolutionary fait-accompli. But the Marxist package was anemic and the result in the end was hardly a working class soon again the exploited victim in the victim in the coming of Stalin.The democratic failsafe wasn’t there.

We have and again yesterday confronted the worsening crisis and noted how the justification for revolution starts to creep back into the reformist complacency. Revolution is becoming a duty having just watched a fascist wannabee liquidate 600,000 citizens. But the elder situation is far different: Russia simply fell apart as the army nearly dissolved as soldiers threw down their rifles and trekked home, in the horror of World War I which was the real ‘revolution’ by accident. The American military will sooner move to fascism than radicalize and the issue of ecology in the era of global warming moves swiftly past Marxist cliches to demand a whole new rethinking. The future here could be a fascist military, liquidation of the left, and bunkers in Sweden for the capitalist remnant. Capitalist mass murder can now move from six hundred thousand to a hundred million.
Capitalism has ceased to take humanity forward. It should long ago have been overthrown by the working class.

Source: The class, the party and the leadership: How to organize revolution

 

I think that’s a right-wing and very conservative if not reactionary impulse. Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution. Or as Trotsky put it, a river of blood separated Lenin from Stalin. The revolution was made by ordinary people in 1917 — first women, who then called workers into the streets. Eventually, the soldiers went over to the crowds, and you had a revolution. Tsarism was gone. In 1917, there was a euphoria of popular participation, committees, resolutions, and so forth.Ordinary people eventually have to go back home, make a living, take care of the kids, make dinner. Eventually, that democratic and participatory revolution was consumed by foreign intervention, the civil war, the breakdown of the economy, and the building, by the Bolsheviks, of a centralized, authoritarian state. If I write a second volume about Stalin, I’ll write about the period 1917 to the death of Lenin in 1924, about how the Soviet state was built, and how it turned from this more participatory, Paris Commune kind of ideal that you find in Lenin’s book State and Revolution into what eventually became a one-party state under Lenin, and eventually the Stalinist tyranny that destroyed most of the Leninist cadres in 1937.There should be no apology by people on the Left for Stalin. It’s true, of course, that he achieved many things: a forced, and quite crude, but successful industrial revolution, the literacy campaigns, the victory over fascism, the destruction of Nazism, the end of the Holocaust. But Stalinism was the nadir of the Soviet experiment. It was a bloody, ruthless period. It destroyed many of the important achievements that were won earlier. It made the country stupider by decapitating the party and decapitating the intelligentsia, and turning people into cogs, or little screws, as Stalin put it.Marxism and socialism are basically a democratic expansion of bourgeois liberal democracy. It’s the empowerment of ordinary people. Stalinism was the usurpation of power from the people, the decimation of the trade unions and the independence of ordinary people into a top-down dictatorship. Despite some of its achievements, it shouldn’t be celebrated.

Source: How Josef Stalin Became a Bolshevik

 Some suggestions for moving beyond Marx…

Drop the term ‘Marxism’: it has generated a cult of personality based on a cult leader who can’t be questioned, Marx was a domineering cult leader type and could barely deal with Engels, let alone the general public. His manner has made a cult of marxism that is counterproductive now.

Abandon ‘historical materialism’, period. It is pseudo-science and a philosophical quagmire. It had a great effect on the way to secular humanism, but its history is not relevant now. The materialism that battled Hegel’s idealism is dated now and in the age of quantum field theory doesn’t even represent science. There is no sequence of economic epochs generating world history. That’s nonsense. Capitalism is a continuous stream in universal history starting with Paleolithic barter. It is suddenly amplified by the Industrial Revolution and becomes dominant but it is not an epoch in itself. It arises and then dominates modernity, which is indeed the start of a new epoch. To label capitalism an epoch Marx makes a monumental blunder which suggests it will persist for centuries. In reality it is a set of economic and technological chmaracters that can be changed at any time, and given the outcome it should be absorbed under socialism as soon as possible. The sequence feudalism, capitalism, communism is a fiction and we should look at world history, where Marx had never even heard of Sumer, as a simple chronology and abandon the futile effort to make history a science.

The legacy of socialism/communism ended up in jackknife against liberal systems, which provoked the excuse for total destruction of democracy.
Socialism needs to create a viable economy: our idea of democratic market neo-communism shows a simple way to blend the two types of system.
Democracy, markets, planning, a Commons…there are multiple components to a new social system. We can’t just exclaim socialism without specifying the multiple components essential.

Marx’s basic theories are idiotic oversimplification from the age of early scientism.
Leftists must disown the old, and be wary of old terminology. The public is not aware of the difference between idealistic Marx groups and North Korean communism. Marx never acknowledges failure where the public is more sensible and sees the problem at once. It would be nice to move from the terms socialism/communism. But that might not work. We have created the term neo-communism and moved on. We define these terms fresh and they don’t have to conform to Marx’s boilerplate nonsense.
Marxists have confused everyone and made socialism an impossible task/

A socialist system should be based on a liberalism, save on the issue of private property, capital.

It is not crazy! Look at Exxon-Mobil: such monsters should have been expropriated at the start, as Marx and Engels originally thought in the 1848 era.  The public has let these gangster capitalists sieze control of all human resources. Property in the large doesn’t refer to property in the small, personal belongings, small shops, etc… It was obvious very early but now the public is almost too conditioned to change. But the issue is no longer private belief system: we can start to see the whole world system set to crash.

to be continued

Source: The biggest obstacle to socialism is the cult of Marx idiots…/The Question of a Stagnant Marxism: Is Marxism Exegetical or Scientific?  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Letter to the Socialists, Old and New  

Socialism is making a comeback but it is important to see that the older brand is played out and that a new generation will be done a disservice if they fall into old grooves. Time is short but no work is being done to recast the old legacy into something new and practical and the result will be a kind of sluggish inaction stuck in a dated version of marxism. We have critiqued marxism, after praising its historical moment and the way it created a way station to the future. But after the legacy of Bolshevism, the subject must start over and become a new framework. Continue reading “Letter to the Socialists, Old and New  “