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…

  The critics of the 9/11 ‘truthers should be charged as complicit in the carnage created by 9/11 state propaganda…//Spike Lee’s HBO documentary stars 9/11 conspiracy theorist Richard Gage.

The issue of 9/11 had been so muddled by left and right both that it is very difficult to step beyond the disinformation on the subject. The question of 9/11 is not hard to figure out: the evidence of a false flag op by the US and probably Israel has never been refuted by so-called critics of conspiracy theories. It is not clear how the left got misled here but the issue of a deep state or covert agency operation is too strong to explain away using the charge of truther, etc…
The days of the left led by Chomsky attacking critics is passing and the stark reality of the deception is resurfacing, the more so as the calamity of Afghanistan (and Iraq) as imperial ventures using the 9/11 operations as propaganda for a war on Terror. The critics of the students of the 9/11 should be considered complicit in the immense carnage of US crimes against humanity.
The attempts to debunk the evidence for controlled demolition is mostly a shouting match by those in denial, starting with Chomsky

Bravo for Spike Lee

HBO needs to fix this before it’s too late.

Source: Spike Lee’s HBO documentary stars 9/11 conspiracy theorist Richard Gage.


Writing in the conservative rag, The National Review, months before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Goldberg paraphrased a statement which he attributed to Ledeen with reference to the interventionist US foreign policy.

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business,” Goldberg wrote, quoting Ledeen.

Source: US Foreign Policy Adrift: Why Washington is No Longer Calling the Shots –

Liberalism Is as Bad as the Economist Makes It Sound

The critique of liberalism is all important but at the same time the world of the Economist doesn’t really define or exhaust the category. If liberalism defined and liberalism in practice diverge then we must study the history there with care and not confuse the two, even if the ‘liberals in practice’ do confuse the two.

Lenin hated liberalism, not far behind Marx, but that was another trap. In any case the left has to move to both critique and transcend liberalism. But do they have any prospect of doing so?

This is a fascinating article but the larger history of liberalism, and simple democracy is needed. The left will move to create something worse with the incomplete models of marxism.

Just a caution near an interesting idea for a book on liberalism…

Liberalism is often presented as a loose set of principles like reason, freedom, and the rule of law. But over almost two centuries, the Economist has provided a window into the dominant strand of liberalism in action — with imperial conquest and undemocratic regimes defended in the name of upholding “free trade.”

Source: Liberalism Is as Bad as the Economist Makes It Sound

 Imperialism versus empire…the misleading analog of the ‘Roman empire’…

Terms are fluid and drift into semantic logjam. From our point of view the US is not an empire but a republic showing republican decline, possibly into empire. Modern discourse used to distinguish ‘imperialism’ for ’empire’ and to see imperialism often in tandem with capitalism producing a system of exploitation and dependency if not empire. Since the usage for the British empire contradicts this our ‘quibble’ is a lost cause, but it remains the case that the US is an imperialistic democracy drifting into oligarchy thence possibly into empire. The distinction is clear from the case of Rome and that analog reminds us that the decline of the Roman Empire is a much later phenomenon distinct from the degeneration of the Roman republic.
The point is significant perhaps because empires are entropic while imperialisms are perhaps repairable.
Clearly however the US is in trouble and its state is not really decline but a disease of fascism. The point is that a political rejuvenation is entirely possible in theory because the system two centuries old still has a potential that could be realized.
In any case the analogy of the Roman Empire is not correct at this point and the American system while losing its legacy is still a potential field of political advance if only via revolution.

Source: ‘Oligarchs don’t care about democracy’: Pulitzer winner Chris Hedges warns COVID-19 will ‘trigger a decline unlike anything seen since the Great Depression’ –

 Revolutions in action

This is an invaluable essay, yet one we should critique, because it actually attempts, after a fashion, to consider the actual process of social construction in the wake of ‘revolution’. As we see the whole subject suddenly stumbles into complexities of all kinds. Let us note to start in passing that ‘class struggle’ is not the motor of history. We always caution about statements about historical dynamics. Marxism got it wrong, along with most other attempts. This needs more discussion elsewhere.
The motor of history can only be approximated: our methods of the eonic model suggests a better approach…The macro transitions there are ‘revolutions’ after a fashion, but far more complex…
But we might reiterate our warning Continue reading ” Revolutions in action”