Good question, what is socialism?…we just linked to an article on the chinese treatment of the uighurs and that in the name of communism, evidently.
Naive marxists seem not to realize the impression they give in sharing a common terminology and ideology as thy promote their subject in the abstract. Issues they would disavow in a second nontheless stick to their promotion of a ‘common’ set of themes on the left. The result is the stalled public image and promotion of a reasonable socialist theme to a paranoid public that will likely undergo surveillance as a result of minimal interaction.
It is an elementary mistake by leftists and the danger doesn’t seem to sink in.
We have always demanded disassociation with the old left and its bolshevik legacy. You can try, probably in vain, to distance marx and his theories here, but it doesn’t work on the whole. Use marx historically, but then move on. The whole subject is passing into oblivion and marxists should drop the label and start over.
Our idea of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ may itself be too connected with the past but at least ‘neo-communism’ can’t be confused with historical usage and demands a new definition from scratch. This is not the same as rejecting potential aspects of sociaism and communism, but even these labels are prone to misunderstanding. We must use them with care and declare at once their break with historical marxist ideology.
This DMNC is an at first unfamiliar set of redefinitions and most importantly can’t be rejected on the basis of historical versions now in rejection. It hasn’t been tried and has multiple checks to abuse and in fact is a far more effective starting point, etc…
We must hope that our the raw terms ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ now ‘neo-‘ are not beyond salvage…
Source: what is ‘democratic market neo-communism’…?//What is Socialism? – 1848+: The End(s) of History
This view is in fact wrong: capitalism, whatever it got right, has suddenly gotten planetary survival wrong: it is proving fatal to the whole planetary system. Improve it? How so, short of revolution?
In fact, our DMNC, ‘democratic market neo-communism’ shows just what is possible here: Continue reading ” Improve capitalism, now a fatal dose? our DMNC does just that”
Our DMNC may well have its own flaws (we used it, again today, scroll down, to critique standard left vacuum models): but the point is that marxists and leftists (viz. alpert and the chomskians) have no real plan for a socialist future: the idea is that if enough people who call themselves socialists, take over with a revolution, then their magic mantra will solve all the problems of socialist construction. Continue reading “DMNC taken critically, but still able to work day one…”
Can a good economy have central planning, markets, or any combination of the two, and also have self management, solidarity, equity, classlessness. We find that the answer is no. We must find a different approach for allocation.
No? wha?, yeah, right, not enough alberts or chomskians. We can leave the question open, but the possibilities, as far as i can see, are ‘almost’ exhausted by the combination of markets and planning (plus our third sector, below threshold sector): Continue reading ” The chomsky vanguard now plotting ‘revolution’? spare us…let’s vote on liquidating Albert…”
History suggests that it is not enough to speak of ‘socialism’ (or communism): the whole question is really a constellation of related concepts that must work together: Continue reading ” Socialism: the danger of undefined abstractions”
We have arrived at the moment foretold by the revolutionaries of the year 1848…
January 24th, 2015 ·
We have arrived at the moment foretold by the revolutionaries of the year 1848. The future of the world system at the end of globalization remains tremendously uncertain, but the crisis of capitalism at a time of planetary danger summons at once its dialectical companion, the idea of communism. We cannot indulge the shibboleths of the failure of communism, if capitalism is itself a failure. It is useful
therefore to consider the question of emergent communism in the wake of the French Revolution in the context of the model of macroevolutionary history demonstrated in World History and the Eonic Effect. The difficulties of historical materialism suggest the need for a larger dimension of the historical, and a look at the place of economic systems in the record of civilization. It is important to take the idea of communism (we must immediately recast the idea as a ‘new communism’) critically, but can we do the same for the delusive dogmas of capitalism? And the issue of evolution in its Darwinian ideology prone to social darwinist manipulations of class warfare becomes the object of critical enquiry. The danger of the current paradigm is the promotion of the idea of capitalism as an evolutionary game of the survival of the fittest. But the reality is the danger of social and species degeneration under the regime of unlimited market civilization. A future evolution of man is not the drama of the last man proposed by Nietzsche, but a social context of cooperation that can allow the development of man in a coherent and caring environment beyond the destructive character of markets: a framework of postcapitalist communism is the foundation for a new and future man, evolving as a species, and not as a series of warring evolutionary degenerates in competition.
The left preaching ‘revolution’ is confronted with the exemplar of the modern transition (consider the eonic model) which was itself a kind of meta-revolution in the sense of creating a transformation in all categories of society over several centuries. By comparison a socialist revolution is a bit anemic. A future society is not going to stand for some kind of denatured marxist scientism based on materialism, scientism, reductionism, darwinism, etc… What is the alternative? Continue reading “Revolution…and the early modern”