Postcapitalist futures: online texts

Postcapitalist Futures: The Last Revolution: postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021
Post Capitalist Futures: Notes Toward a Critique of Marxist ‘Stages of Production’ Theory

Decoding World History_ED1
9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)
 9780984702930-LFM_text(2)

Toward a New Communist Manifesto_jlandon_kindle_10_11_16_PDF_ver2
Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2)

WHEE_abrdg_kindle_johnlandon_PDF2A (1) (1)

9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(4)

Capitalism, Communism and the Evolution of Civilization(1)

9780984702947_txt_Enigma_of_the_Axial_Age(1)
Samkya_ancient_modern2ax
The_Failure_of_Darwinism_Landon_kindle_version_pdf(1)

The Anthropocene and The Coming of Postcapitalism ver 12
The Crisis of Modernity_ver6
Out of Revolution_text_kindle_johnlandon_wbf_pdf
WHEE_5thed_pdf (1)(1)Kants_challenge_resolved_nature’s secret_plan7xa_web
R48G_The Coming_Of_Postacapitalism_pdf

A last email to marxmail

Re: The discussion of historical materialsim
From: Nemonemini
To: marxmail@groups.io
Cc: multiple cc’d subscribers at marxlist
Date: Thu, Sep 23, 2021 1:30 pm
This will be censored, so I will send it around so that some are aware they are being deprived of a discussion I think is important.
It is a pity nothing can seemingly be done with the current Marxist paradigm. But I can see no alternative.

Here’s one last attempt to communicate a critical Marxism for the times. In its current form Marxism has crippled the left and the results are visible in the way it is stalled as far as social action is concerned.
I would say (and have hundreds of essay posts at redfortyeight.com with a book archiving several years of its posts) that Marxist create cognitive dissonance in using the general terminology shared by China,
and North Korea and umpteen other Marxist and Leninist groups. The general public has no idea where Marxists are coming from and find few indications the whole range can even critique Stalinism, what to say of Leninism,
and bolshevism in general. That disorganization is a block for most newcomers and the general public.It is essential to start over and carefully lay a ground work that can point to what is intended without any reference to the Marxist legacy. The term ‘marxism’ is part of a cult of personality of Marx and is dated now. Continue reading “A last email to marxmail”

Marxmail, some info, and a new left

Trying to communicate with marxists is difficult, but I persist in thinking they can repair their flawed framework.
Marx said he wasn’t a marxist so the issue of heresies is more relaxed here…The Marxist formulation is flawed
and won’t work a second time, so the question of some kind of new perspective is critical.

Re: The discussion of historical materialsim
From: Nemonemini
To: j.x
Date: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 1:34 am
I don’t consider myself a Marxist now but I have been studying Marxist texts since the midseventies of the last century when I lived in the east village in New York and read a lot of books on Marxism, with an old Jewish communist coaching me. That’s almost fifty years ago. I have read a huge number of books here. But my views were in a larger context of secular humanist, new age, broad philosophical range with many aspects.
Recently I have tried to produce a critique of Marxism, but without any reactionary overtones: I find Marx’s theories of history to be flawed and taking the edge off of his many other essential contributions. Continue reading “Marxmail, some info, and a new left”

marxmail via Andrew Stewart published this post blogged here at R48.com…very good…//the left and the 9/11 deception//How is it that marxists can’t see through 9/11 propaganda…//posts re: marxmail.io  

It is good for Marxmail to publish this post. The crisis of the times demands a strong, and perhaps a new left, even as Marxism, however dated in the view of some, has some key contributions to make. The issue of 9/11 needs to be reconsidered by a large public but unfortunately the scandal would be so colossal the whole government could hardly live it down. That 9/11 was deliberate and created a war on terror that has been downright gennocidal in the middle east is a sentence pronounced on American democracy which needs to recreate itself sooner or later, now sooner: soon.
(We have suggested our DMNC model here).
The issue of marxism is not so hard, easy to repair, and in any case Marx himself refused to get specific as we now see the time has come to get specific. We need a new democracy and that requires socialism.

As noted, I brought the issue of 9/11 (and marxist theory) to the Marxmail listserv and was just on the verge of initiating a much-needed discussion of the dismal reign of propaganda on the subject…

Source: the left and the 9/11 deception//How is it that marxists can’t see through 9/11 propaganda…//posts re: marxmail.io  –  – 1848+: The End(s) of History

neither democracy nor communism…//China: capitalist, imperialist? AI and 5G

Our original post got chopped off: here it is:

AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order /Amazon/Kindle //AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order /Amazon/Kiindle There are any number of books as above warning that China will soon be world dominant in AI, 5G. etc. (alarming books on China are a thriving genre, so who knows): China invests massively in research where the US tends to be somewhat disorganized relying on the market which can misfocus. The capitalist/communist duality is useless for both US and China: our idea of DMNC: ‘democratic market neo-communism”; both China and US are difficient by this model taken as a test: China is hopeless on democracy, the US is imprisoned in capitalism, etc…

update: actually, the US democracy is not that, and the Chinese case is not communism (by our definition)

In reality the US is not democracy and China is not communism. Our DMNC model (democratic market neo-communism) enforces the rule that  ‘communism’ that has no democratic elements is not communist and democracies dominated by the open market are not democracies.

Our model enforces a four term system: democracy (in dialectic with ‘authority’), markets as ‘socialist’ markets based on a commons, and neo-communism to pull away from the misuse of the term ‘communism’ to demand that stalinist systems, for example, are not ‘communist’.

(An example of ‘authority’ would in one variant of our model be a four party system of three parties in a parliament, and a presidential party consisting of a one-party assembly of the revolutionaries who founded the system and are consigned to guard the Commons, but without any larger powers as such. That system can solve the dialectic of democracy/authority but is dangerously liable to derail. But the point is that democracy alone tends to chaotify while authority tends to tyranny. All democracies in fact have, and hide, this factor which should be explict under checks and balances. Our model can produce a dozen variants of this).

Socialism markets have a huge literature on the left, some of it critical, but the issue is not so complex: markets under the DMNC model are based on a Commons after the process of expropriation and are run by managers who license resources from the Commons. Thus ‘oil’ would be in the Commons and Exxon-Mobil after expropriation could process fossil fuels under license and subject to ecological courts that can mediate environmental issues.

The question of democracy is tricky in our DMNC model democracy is matched with a Commons, and with a system of legal and economic rights and can have any number of labor orgs and unions. The idea of a Commons must however confront a global context with a new kind of International: this system can be national but must also consider its transnational context. etc… Nothing even remotely like this has ever been attempted and yet it resolves most of the issues. The ‘socialist market’ has been shot down multiple times but in vain: it is a perfectly good idea done right. A socialist market will suffer some inefficiency due to its place in a larger system, but so does the classic market in say the US before neoliberalism.

Basically if you can inject flea markets into the model, you inject markets. These can be worker owned but in general the equalization factor makes even the distinction of workers and bourgeoisies obsoleter AND/OR on the way to obsolete in a system that starts with former members of given class thrown together in a new evolving system…

Postcapitalist futures: online texts

 

Postcapitalist Futures: The Last Revolution: postcapitalist_ futures_NWBK_ver2a_LFT_2021
Post Capitalist Futures: Notes Toward a Critique of Marxist ‘Stages of Production’ Theory

Decoding World History_ED1
9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)
 9780984702930-LFM_text(2)

Toward a New Communist Manifesto_jlandon_kindle_10_11_16_PDF_ver2
Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2)

WHEE_abrdg_kindle_johnlandon_PDF2A (1) (1)

9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(4)

Capitalism, Communism and the Evolution of Civilization(1)

9780984702947_txt_Enigma_of_the_Axial_Age(1)
Samkya_ancient_modern2ax
The_Failure_of_Darwinism_Landon_kindle_version_pdf(1)

The Anthropocene and The Coming of Postcapitalism ver 12
The Crisis of Modernity_ver6
Out of Revolution_text_kindle_johnlandon_wbf_pdf
WHEE_5thed_pdf (1)(1)Kants_challenge_resolved_nature’s secret_plan7xa_web
R48G_The Coming_Of_Postacapitalism_pdf

who’s the bigger obstacle to socialism, the CIA or the cadre of marx idiots?…//Marx, the Paris Commune; socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21

Two Manifestos

A battle for the soul of socialism.

Source: Marx, the Paris Commune & socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21

———-

A fascinating article but still the problem remains that socialism has nothing but a confused hodgepodge of ideas its proponents can never realize or clarify. What is the problem? Socialism should have come into existence in the generation of its birth after the take-off of capitalism. Its chances now are against a colossus of pseudo-democratic oligarchic mafias armed with massive armaments/armies, covert agencies specialized in defeating revolt/dissent, and an economic system so labyrinthine that ordinary notions of socialism cannot correctly analyze. Marx’s influence is confusing to all later adherents who struggle to grasp the germano-hegelian jargon swamp that Marx bequeathed to followers for whom he had a hidden contempt, as his remarkable treatment of Weitling reminds us. Such a system is elitist all over again, save that the elite itself can’t figure out Marx. The clear failure of Marx’s theories of history next to his often brilliant extra-systematic insights again confuses the faithful who have lost the ability to critique and therefore understand anything of the now useless baggage of marxist ideology to replace the capitalist. Marx’s combination of hyperintelligence, arrogant domination, and feckless science muddle has created a rogue elephant on the loose. To be sure, Marx struggled to create a systematic corpus for an exodus from his castigated ‘utopian’ socialist muddle of early socialism and to make it a canon that could exert authority against a wasteland of stray ‘socailisms’, but that strategy can’t make critical errors and has to get it right the first time or the result is not the science Marx proclaimed but still another brand of ‘utopian’ tinkertoys that at least offer a pool of variant DNA, sadly dismissed and put out of existence. Marx’s flawed system then surged in the Second International, but failing in all cases to find a venue, save in the anomalous case of Bolshevism. Lenin realized however that socialism could start anywhere anytime and pressed on with the Russian anomaly,but the hidden tragic flaws of Marx’s system derailed the whole attempt as it devolved into Stalinism.
We have a host of suggestions here, but basically, it might help to leave behind ‘theory’ in the sense of science. There are no sciences of society, sociology, psychology, or even evolution. From basic science, physics to biochemistry, the buck stops just around the evolutionary zone where the failure of theory is beyond even the awareness of biologists. And,sure enough, Marxism added a further cement block to drag it down, Darwinism, turning natural selection into a genocidal ‘class war’ weapon. To be sure, Marx had a brilliant analysis, which doesn’t require his Big Theory, of the way the factor of bourgeois domination and capitalism seep into and take over ‘democracy’. But the case of the US Rebs, which fall under that critique, nonetheless shows an early path attempting democracy (with hints of democratic socialism manque in its stunning focus on equality, however soon vitiated, unprecedented for its time).
The only revolution that really succeeded was the humble revolt of the American Rebs, nowhere near as smart, or smart ass, as Marx who made a total mess where the Rebs actually produced (serendipitously perhaps) a republic, a later diagnosed as bourgeois revolution with a strange democratizing potential, despite the near stealth anti-democratic elements foisted on the experiment by its elite slaveholders: the issue of slavery fairly well scotches the effort that looks ridiculous in retrospect but which shows a case where dirt farmers at least brought a revolution to term and showed more intelligent any of the nutjob marxists who come later.
The moral then is to consider the core idea of a republic quite compatible with a socialist brand, and then consider how it can realize increasing democracy as it manifests a socialist music/economics. It has a key obstacle the early Rebs didn’t have: the need to contain capital in a socialist container instead of the let-be/laissez-faire that made a revolution much easier in its outcome sequence. But the problem is not beyond solution: a simple requirement that ‘capital’/property at high level be annexed into a Commons, leaving the rest as is would be a minimal version of socialism that could be realized easily once the coming crisis of capitalism is seen finally for what it is. That means, no more Exxons and all such macro-capital formations. The lower level can by and large be left as is.
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ shows how easy it is to construct a variant of liberalism as a socialism/commnunism, dispensing with Marx’s distinction of the two. Such simple recipes could work fine, until Marxists get a hold of them.https://redfortyeight.com/2021/09/05/whos-the-bigger-obstacle-to-socialism-the-cia-or-the-cadre-of-marx-idiots-marx-the-paris-commune-socialisms-two-souls-what-liberation-are-we-fighting-for-rs21/ link sent to marxmail, obviously will be suppressed.

Two Manifestos

A battle for the soul of socialism.

Source: Marx, the Paris Commune & socialism’s two souls: What liberation are we fighting for? | rs21

Next to marxism’s failure of vision….//Michael Harrington’s Failure of Vision – Left Voice

The critique of Harrington is cogent enough, but are Marxists in a position to stand in judgment? Their own flawed framework drives socialists into reformism, among many factors no doubt.
Harrington was right to criticize the Soviet Union, and the muddle of Marxists over the whole issue of Bolshevism has paralyzed the left. The ultimate source of the confusion is Marx himself who crippled the left with his bad theories and failure to specify what was to be done in the name of socialism. The result was Lenin, then Stalin on a socialist platter. Historical materialism was a mediocre pseudo-science. Why not just chuck it.
If the left can’t disown Lenin/Stalin, they will never get a second chance as they smother all other options. In fact, the anomaly of Russia 1917 clouds the fact that no revolutionary Marxist initiative has ever succeeded. Without exception, save Cuba, they all failed because the moment of coming into power was bungled Marxist assumptions. State ownership of capital was a mistake from the start. A system of coercion enters to reinforce the initial wrong axioms. The hard break with liberalism made democracy impossible, etc… A true socialism should be immensely popular. Instead, we see the immense disgust with socialism, fed by the right, but also by leftist confusion.

We have suggested many times a far simpler version of socialism as neo-communism in our construct or model of ‘democratic market neo-communism’. It is an erector set of potentials, and shows at once the way the Marxist framework constantly fails.
If the left can’t create a democracy it is doomed at the start. But to be sure the counterrevolution can destroy good intentions and immediately turned Leninist hopes into a covert agency domination of psychopaths.
Such system as our DMNC doesn’t destroy the capitalist state, which was an invitation to Stalinism, but remorphs a liberal state into a neo-communist extension by expropriating capital to a Commons, under its own laws and checks and balances and not subject to one-party control. Markets can operate with resources licensed from the Commons. Economic rights within an economy that can deliver would make socialism (needs a new name) very popular.
Markets, planning, can coexist very easily if done right. This kind of system can emerge from revolution or, at the outside, reform. We have discussed many versions of this, one with an indifference level below which the control factor is minimal. In another a five party state, and a set of guardians. The main issue is economic sanity in a balance of markets and planning. The coming crisis demands a core eco-socialist version.

The Marxist left keeps harping over reformists but it is in many ways they who have smothered a real left. The chance for revolution may have passed, as Marx/Engels must have sensed as they fought in the revolutions of 1848. If there is no chance of revolution then the high and mighty judgment of reformists is a fantasy. But, to be sure, the DSA/Harrington approach is stuck in its own treadmill. It is a rigged system that makes third parties impossible. The whole Bolshevik experiment accomplished nothing but to turn into Putinism. The current political paralysis will soon follow suit as the dictator syndrome arrived so swiftly with Trump.
Here the left must be the champion of democracy, ‘real democracy’, and that must be the control core around which a transition to expropriation can occur. The coming climate crisis will stage the opportunity. But Marxists have shown they will spoil every chance they get.
Time for the multiple alternatives such as our DMNC spectrum. Marxists can disband and reform overnight, and renounce their legacy of wrong thinking.

Interview with Doug Greene, author of a new biography of Michael Harrington.

Source: Michael Harrington’s Failure of Vision – Left Voice

Capitalism is at endgame: we need a new left: in one hour’s work we have a complete new formulation…

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/07/20/are-we-prepared-pandoras-box-climate-catastrophes

The link to Common Dreams is the umpteenth this month warning of the coming-now-here catastrophe of our ecological disaster. We present a new framework making the point we can produce them very rapidly. It speaks to reformists and/or revolutionaries. We might prefer reformist demcratic (pseudo-socialism) but unless the left can expropriate monstrosities like Exxon, now willfully engaging in planetary ecocide the calamity will be guaranteed. We speak therefore of ‘neo-communism’ and offer a new kind of system with failsafe guarantees against stalinism,  models for a robust new kind of economy, and an exit vehicle from the stale and dated marxism. That said,  protestant reformed marxists after some sense knocked in their heads are open candidates for a new revolutionary/reformist transition.

Marxists could do an immense service by disowning marxism, and starting over with a new framework. Failing that we consider leaving them behind, to attempt something new. The material below is an hour’s work and does just that, however incomplete. There is no excuse anymore for monopolizing socialist ideas with Karl Marx as fetish saint. We have moved on and will never use the term ‘communism’ without a prefix as in neo-communism and a with failsafe revolutionary options that can bypass jacobinism and guarantee habeas corpus,etc. The left cannot rehash bolshevism, if they do, we are all dead.
The future is at risk at the start from the army of covert agency psychopaths who have billions in resources and decades of experience at destroying leftists. The must find the resolution to the near hopeless situation left to us. But the left has time on its side: the capitalists have run out of time. Having critiqued Marxists, it is also true that they have preserved the revolutionary option. For that they have our respect, although what we say is to reformists and/or revolutionaries. We have variously advocated the be drafted/shanghaied into our R48G formation (below)
The revolution/reform dilemma is false, perhaps: Gaian nature is mad as hell and is already staging the ‘Revolution’.
Our idea is that of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ which could be the blueprint to reconstruct a new society in less than a month.

R48g: Red Fortyeight Group: The algebra of left movements: Let R48G be….Movement X, revolutionary/reformist, I am too old to found a movement but I can offer an algebra of movements that are able to deal with the crisis.
Let just note that every movement based on marxism has failed. There are simple solutions to its confusions.
Some notes for a new book on an emergency left, companion to Last and First Men
The idea of the Red Fortheight Group points to the era of the bourgeois revolution moving into a socialist future in the 1848 period, the era of Marx and Engels and the first challenges to the suddenly crystallizing capitalist order. Our idea tokens a movement variable of The Red-fortyeight Group as an algebra of movementsin a superset of liberal, socialist and communist groups, factions, parties and their futures in our own time as the prophecy of the Last Revolution takes shape at a moment of global system collapse.
The need for a critical postmarxism: at a time of crisis the older facts on the ground of Bolshevism have completely wrecked the legacy of Marxism: the latter used to be an immensely popular idea but now leaves most including the working class paranoid and wary of Stalinism. The left must start over and produce a new view of history and evolution, a blueprint for a new society, and a new type of economy that works.
Again, the left MUST start over. The material was composed in one hour or so and shows how a new left can emerge in no time
We need more materials, no doubt, viz. on ecological socialism.
The left needs to critique and move beyond Darwinism which is going to be a tool of capitalists and rogue scientists to use genocide as the crisis deepens. (Stalin was the great pioneer here, to the immense discredit of Marxists.) The idea of natural selection is used by the field of rogue scientists to justify capitalism, competition, mass murder as evolution, etc…
A simple framework for a robust take on ‘evolution’ can be provided in about five minutes. The sophistical lies and deceptions of Darwinism’s natural selection are dangerous and totally unnecessary.
Our take on ‘decoding world history’ shows how easy it is to produce a simple outline/model of world history. Historical materialism is not a sound framework and leads to the worst kind of reductionist scientism. We don’t need to reduce the world to economic categories.
A sound study of history must embrace the fact/value distinction and be a story/history of free agents, with the dialectic of free will.

A work in progess, to accompany Descent of Man Revisited, and Last and First Men:
Postcapitalist Futures

Postcapitalist Futures


Preface Continue reading “Capitalism is at endgame: we need a new left: in one hour’s work we have a complete new formulation…”