china stumbled into a limited version of our DMNC model…//China Between Communism and Capitalism | The Nation

The Chinese model persisted where Russian bolshevism failed because it stumbled into our DMNC universe where the place of ‘markets’ in a communist system, which had never been properly analyzed in classic Marxism, was taken in a different way. Unfortunately, the result is a corrupted hybrid that embedded capitalism inside a fake communism with no democratic potential. But the Chinese saw that the capitalist market nexus was not the same as the more general issue of markets. China is really a neoliberal ‘ communist’ fake inside the capitalist world system. But they saw or allowed themselves to act in seeming contradiction to the classic and misleading legacy.
In our DMNC model we can allow ‘socialist markets’ inside a larger system of a Commons of expropriated capitals. These markets are not however capitalist invasions of global capital but entities connected to a Commons: there is thus a completely ignored middle terra incognita where a nexus of markets operating inside a system of (neo-) communist macroeconomy (and planning as a parallel universe. Such a system can stop in its tracks the virtually neo-colonialist entanglement of the Chinese version with global capital.

The history of the country’s relationship with the market is filled with conflicting narratives.

Source: China Between Communism and Capitalism | The Nation

 The CPC/Bolshevik monstrosities

I have tried for quite a while to critique the Marxist legacy from the left, along with its outcomes, Bolshevik, and in the Chinese case, and others. The realm of Marx had really bad luck, and the Bolshevik case (with the Chinese basically in that category) produced a distortion that is almost impossible to deal with short of starting over with new and very careful use of terms. China emerged very closely matched at the start with Bolshevik then Stalinist thinking. It has always been so. The left must face reality, they have produced nothing but one mess after another. And yet the real McCoy shouldn’t be so hard to bring off. Where has the left gone wrong?
It is time face reality: The CPC is a pseudo-communism, authoritarian, fascist, ethnocentric, neo-colonialist and racist, genocidal gangster operation tied to and strangely a colony of neoliberal capitalism. It is determined to infiltrate the global left and will liquidate most of the subscribers to Marxmail at the endgame. The left raised on Marxist dogmas cannot discriminate between interpretations of a ‘shared’ Marxist jargon universe. All we can do is leave the Chinese case behind and start over, however reluctant many would be to accept that. Here we have dropped for good the term ‘communism’ for ‘neo-communism’, for example not that that really solves the problem, to keep one step ahead of cognitive dissonance. But changing terms can make clear that, as here  the term ‘communism’ is obsolete.
The fault we must consider lies with the original Marxist corpus, mindful that can be unfair. And yet there is a vein of flawed thinking in the Marx legacy, which is depressing in its total failure to produce any successes.
You may call this extreme, but what is the alternative? Communism in any real sense requires overthrowing the Chinese monstrosity and starting over. As we have noted many times, part of the problem is the use of slogan nouns, like socialism, undefined and which then refer to doomed realizations. We must have a new and rigorous terminology. Part of the problem lies with ‘stages of production’ theory, which prophesies communism to come after capitalism. But the historical theory behind that is not science in any sense, and it has led to a complacency about the inevitability of postcapitalism when the stark reality is that an intelligent left of some sort has to define what that means and do the job right, not so simple, and beyond the capacity of cadre Marxists who imagine solidarity with the CPC.

The world is waiting anxiously and short of conviction for a new path to socialism. But that is not so simple given monstrosities like the CPC and its Bolshevik sources.

Within and outside DSA, many on the Left have aligned themselves with the Communist Party of China (CPC). Guest author Travis S. submitted this piece to Tempest in the interest of furthering debate on the question of how the left should relate to the CPC. He explores the contradictions and implications of tying the Left to the ruling party of China.

Source: Building a mass movement with no apologism – Tempest

We Can Only Go Beyond Communism …//[Yankee bourgeois democracy/capitalocracy] by Coming to Terms With Its History

We have addressed all this directly with a demand to start over on a new left, a break with its history, which is not the same as ignoring that history, and starting with a larger and looser framework of history/evolution, and a construction of explicit socialist political and economic systems, starting by ‘going beyond communism’ with a new term: neo-communism in the block four term plus term: democratic market neo-communism. This approach tries to deal with the calculation debate, allow socialist markets based on a Commons, and a fundamental inheritance of issues: expropriation of capital into a Commons, which is not the same as state capitalism. This system demands democracy but will inherit a revolutionary cadre that must have a failsafed protocol to yield power to a new government, something only the American Revolution ever achieved, however illusory the reality and later catastrophic failure in the neoliberal era.
This system is very different from the classic versions that all end in Stalinism, but it needs a failsafed transition sequence that can survive its own revolutions, and at worst a civil war. The left must study what the American Revolution alone achieved: a starting point: a middle interval: and a constitutional start, after an anti-imperial war. That is a real achievement even if the task demanded was allowed an oversimplification: the ‘laissez-faire’ of ‘democracy’ and a large continental space about which no discipline was asked. This process made life easy for itself and could acheive a transition to a new system because it was a simple tinkertoy. We must face its actual long delayed failure as surely as that of the French Revolution., not forgetting its historic struggle with slavery. The American system ended in genocide of indigenous peoples, and then the slow but steady erosion created by capitalism, and then the catastrophe of covert agencies, commercial militarism, and the hidden drug trade and general criminalization of the whole government apparatus: an easy early success and final catastrophic failure.
Cf. our The Last Revolution
Thirty years ago today, the Soviet Union collapsed. Twentieth-century communism should be understood in all its complexity, as revolution and regime, a spur to anti-colonialism and an alternative form of social democracy.

Source: We Can Only Go Beyond Communism by Coming to Terms With Its History

Dialogue of the Deaf: Debating Ted Koppel on Communism 

It seemed at the time that communism had failed but that moment opened up an opportunity for leftists who had always been angry at the betrayal of a great potential and hope in the Bolshevik era. But it also warned that a new brand was essential and that the cognitive dissonance of leftist terminology could not refer to the Leninist era and to the future at the same time. The ‘end of history’ was soon to be nothing of the kind.
So, drop all old terminology and start over, from ‘communism’ to neo-communism, and to terminology failsafed now, as in ‘democratic market neo-communism’, where a four or more fold process can reopen the debate and struggle for a postcapitalist future.

Source: Dialogue of the Deaf: Debating Ted Koppel on Communism –

this entire association of marxist windbags after twenty years has nothing to suggest to a case like Venezuela, zero…// | (Fwd) World Association for Political Economy conference (deadline to apply… join online is 25 Nov)

(Fwd) World Association for Political Economy conference (deadline to apply to join online is 25 Nov)

This milieu would apparently allow no dissent or critique of Marxism as far as I can see (certainly, marxmail unsubs critics of Marxism at once, and it basically allow no criticism). The atmosphere of Shanghai doesn’t suggest any serious discussion. A critic of Marx on home terrain would be liquidated, no doubt.

Why on earth hold a conference in Shanghai. China is a disgusting fake socialism based on gulags and mass murder. This conference is for dupes of the Chinese system, no doubt.

I will send a copy of my The Last Revolution plus links, but it will be a waste of time. I have no academic credentials (I have a degree in classics from Columbia College) and an MA in mathematics from TC/Columbia. An MA from a teacher’s college is a fatal liability as I later discovered but I took a year to teach myself a lot of mathematics in order to get into the Peace Corps. I was later unable to find any position as a math teacher in the US. I can handle all the math up to quantum mechanics as a self-taught student I taught myself General Relativity on my own, more or less, not a simple subject for independent study), which is a total non-starter in the credentials field. A PHD in classics was such a terrible idea that I didn’t consider it, I would never had gotten a job in a field currently under collapse. So much for a CV. I have been a kind of hobo in the American West, riding around on freight trains with working-class blokes, and have seen dozens squared plus of working-class work spaces, from apple picking in Washington to short handle hoe ag in Arizona.

It is a waste of time to even approach Marx cadres which are collectives of narrow thinking. It would be nice to be able to discuss The Last Revolution and ‘democratic market neo-communism’ at Marxmail, but that is impossible. Any criticism of historical materialism and Marx is verboten, and I was unsubbed almost at once. This nonsense has gone on since the early Proyect years in 2000. The idea that Marxists have a connection to the working class is almost complete bullshit.

Marx jargon is easy to manipulate and the basic issue of historical materialism is like religious doctrine. It is an almost amateurish mess of thought, no doubt dealing with Hegel didn’t help.

Socialism can never be achieved under these conditions I would have to assume. So why not start over? Time is running out.

This global community looks impressive on the surface but it is so stuck in jargon that it can’t really deal with practical issues, or generate a serious movement.
In twenty years of Marx blah blah there is no evidence I can see that the global Marxist community can contribute any advice or guidance in the construction of a viable socialism in Venezuela.

    Armed with the DMNC model the creation of a viable socialism as ‘democratic market neo-communism’ could be constructed almost on the spot, with a lot of details needed, to be sure. But the basic point is that Marxists are so confused by their own assumptions that they can’t really handle practical situations. The core issues are the fallacies of stages of production theory, the model of state capitalism crippling the economy, the absence of any idea of socialist markets, the confusion over planned economies, etc, etc…

The model is, to be sure, lacking in the legal research needed to construct a Commons, a new kind of democratic constitution, the socialist market next to the new computerized technologies of planning. But ‘socialist markets’ can be real markets.

Hugo Chavez, to be sure, had an idiosyncratic view inherited by Maduro. But that is because such people soon realize that their Marxism can’t deal with the simple opportunity given to them. Update: the marxmail archive shows a makrxist M. Leibowitz as a Chavez adviser. Apparently didn’t amount to much.
The case of Venezuela is telling: it shows that Marxists have essentially no successes anywhere and cannot suggest the basic steps to do anything. The public has simply drifted away from a zombie subject. Searching marxmail archives for Venezuela

Source: | (Fwd) World Association for Political Economy conference (deadline to apply to join online is 25 Nov)

 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