Britain: the relevance of Clause IV – a reply to Owen Jones

It is a pleasant surprise to see that Owen Jones, the left-wing Guardian journalist, has written a favourable review of the Labour Party’s original Clause IV, which was adopted by the party just over a century ago. His review was carried in the first issue of the recently relaunched Tribune magazine. We very much welcome Owen’s contribution, as it helps to open up a serious debate on the relevance of Clause IV today.

Source: Britain: the relevance of Clause IV – a reply to Owen Jones

 Yellow vests and our DMNC

This is an excellent analysis but the problem if the yellow vests have no defined position, neither do the socialists. We can’t just wave the flag of socialism with a term undefined: we have suggested a neo-marxist analysis that moves beyond Marx’s flawed theories, adopts a larger model of world history, gets coherent on economics, markets, and planning, has democracy built in at the start, …Our model of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ starting with the revolutionary (or for that matter electoral) expropriation of capital and an ecological foundation can help to define the socialist vision in a practical way… Continue reading ” Yellow vests and our DMNC”

 Socialism/communism have no historical exemplars, goodbye to the montrosities of the bolshevik era…

It is not clear to me what exactly I am reading here in this certainly interesting essay, see link below. But if the author includes China as a ‘socialist’ political system, I dissent at once confronted with the monstrosities that the era of bolshevism created and passed to China. But what is the nature of the Cuban system in reality? It is unclear to me and the essay sabotages its own intriguing depiction.

Our DMNC model speaks of neo-communism and divorces itself from all prior attempts, Continue reading ” Socialism/communism have no historical exemplars, goodbye to the montrosities of the bolshevik era…”

Correcting stupido-marxist-bolshevism is pretty easy…once you flush out marxist nonsense…

https://redfortyeight.com/2019/01/16/so-where-does-marxism-go-wrong/

The left is stuck in a kind of marxist religion that forces thinking in a set of dubious ideas.  In fact it is almost embarrassingly easy to think of a resolution of the problems created by archaic communism. A real what we call neo-communism to make sure we see that there is no going back is fairly easy to construct in its gist, whatever complications we would face in practice. Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ shows how easy it is in principle to correct the confusing mess of archaeo-communism a la marxism.

https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf

Our idea simply brings together many opposites into cooperative conjunction:

our idea is to bring communism and democracy together, balance communism with a dash of anarchism ( low level indifference sector,see the texts), planning with a new kind of socialist market, replace capitalist with socialist entrepreneurs, economic resource pitfalls with ecological thinking (and ecological courts, next to economic courts and labor unions), state capitalism scrapped in favor of a Commons ( to which all are legally entitled), strong authority (in a presidential system of some kind) with the task of guarding the Commons, but no power over general politics or the economy (to prevent state capitalism), a parliamentary system balancing a presidential system, and so on. The minute we bring these opposites in conjunction as a system of checks and balances, along with economic, and liberal style rights, the resolution of most of the problems of stupido-bolshevik-marx/communism fall away, at least in principle. We should note that ‘nature’ has ecological rights against the exploitation of nature resources, etc…

Such an amateurishly simple solution is still  light years ahead of stupido-bolshevism but would suffer unforeseen problems of its own, no doubt. But on the level of abstraction it works and could be implemented easily (given revolutionary expropriation of ‘capital’, a big IF!) and would probably work on day one. This set up still has problems with an International, is state-oriented but can develop solutions there in a global context, and must deal with the cancer of covert agencies that  control the current american government, the problem of imperialism and military industrial complex as war for profit, and before we forget the question of Israel. Plus other issues. But the solution to the problem is to see that we must construct a neo-communism and can’t assume history will somehow manufacture it for us. This system has the feel of liberalism yet is communism, and the feel of communism yet is in many ways a remorphed liberalism.