Two manifestos versus the confusion created by marxists…
We have tried over and over again to demonstrate a very simple upgrade of the idea of ‘communism’ and our (free) text/pdf (there are commercial versions also) twin Manifestos attempt to get specific about what communism, or what we call neo-communism might/should be. It is a strange fact that Marx refused to define what it should be and then said that its future was inevitable. The result was a Stalinits plug in and probably a fatal blow to the whole idea.
But our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ offers some suggestions for avoiding the trap that marxism has created. It just won’t happen a second time that the marxist legacy will get the right result. A very clear system needs to be created that will obviate the confusions perpetrated by marxists…

Our DMNC is incomplete?

The history of political systems is mostly a hack of a primitive set of concepts doomed to failure because they are abstractions that soon wear out in the tide of historical collision. Democracies become oligarchies and the idea of communism like a bad pointer in c programming simply crashed at the start due to a lack of definition of the term. A fundamental here is that communism is by definition democratic even though it can also manifest balanced strong authority. The reverse is true: Marx despite the flaws of his theories saw clearly that poorly defined democracies are prey to capitalist domination. The term communism has become a synonym for stalinism such is the incompetence of marxist/leninist bunglers.
We fail to realize the need for a much more complex set of definitions for political/cultural systems. The idea of a balance of powers remains a key innovation in the rise of modern political systems. The full definition would a large book!
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is still primitive but leaves conventional pseudo-democracy and pseudo-communism in the rear view mirror. The treatment of ‘markets’ is also novel and this is not the same as free market capitalism…It is also possible that innovation in AI and computational economics will solve the calculation/clearing issues that crippled bolshevik idiocy.
Our DMNC model no doubt suffers many gaps and is incomplete. We can suggest a few things to think about:
It needs a legal definition of the Commons to escape the confusions of state capitalism. The Commons is a shared set of resources. The state can’t decree its disposition beyond the consent of its co-owners.
Continue reading “Our DMNC is incomplete?”

 Communism and its missing components

The term ‘communism’ has assumed a rigid definition that dooms its realizations to state capitalism, anti-democracy, and command economies. But the term should simply assume that without democracy and robust economies its realization has not occurred. The assumption that bolshevism was an exemplar without protest, by and large, from the marxist left has nearly wrecked the use of the concept nexus altogether.
Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ specifies a complex of properties without which we cannot a communist concept at all.

Source: selections from Democratic Market Neo-communism – 1848: The Ends of History

blame game: blaming marxism for Putin…//Russia Beyond Supervillainy

In Russia, Vladimir Putin’s evil genius matters less than pressures from the ultrarich, US foreign policy, and the ravages of the neoliberal Yeltsin years.

Source: Russia Beyond Supervillainy

A new book on Putin and Russia, reviewed favorably today at the Guardian, Counterpunch and Jacobin suggests an important read and some essential re-analysis of the Putin/Russia phenomenon. Continue reading “blame game: blaming marxism for Putin…//Russia Beyond Supervillainy”