I have often been supportive but critical of Cuba’s communism.
In fact, as we can see Cuba wasn’t what we thought it was.
Another Marxist fraud protected by propaganda and sentimental leftists.
We have over and over again suggested the need for a new post-Marxist approach.
Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ (as ecosocialism) allows a new path to
experimental socialist construction that can actually produce a decent economy
and bypasses the hopeless jackknife effect of ‘communism’ and ‘(liberal/capitalist) democracy’.
This model is only that, but it has the strength that if ordinary liberal capitalism can work then
this new system should also work. Cuba is still another casualty of marxist idiots. The resolution is
utterly simple, perhaps too simple but easily extended with new legal systems, checks and balances and the fundamentals
of expropriation… The effect of planning and socialist markets is almost overkill: but this approach take of the possibilities and
asks us to unite a complete set of opposites in one system
The policy of the ruling class means the continuation of the pandemic and, with it, mass death and social devastation. The only social force able to stop this war on society is the international working class.
Source: As European governments demand population “live with” COVID-19 surge, workers must take up a socialist strategy – World Socialist Web Site
We inject our two manifestos into this well done but probably futile gesture in the long really of Trotsky movements.
What audience can the left expect in this case?
We need a new framework altogether…
This manifesto was approved by the leaderships of the groups of the Trotskyist Fraction – Fourth International in April 2021.
Source: The Capitalist Disaster and the Struggle for an International of Socialist Revolution – Left Voice
Western Marxists still have the idealistic wish for justice that spawned the modern radical left. They would be liquidated day one by the Chinese so-called communists if they ever took power. The Marxist legacy is a hopeless failure, but it is not hard to start over and repair terms.
The left must move on and redefine its terminology. Our DMNC model could easily produce an economy as dynamic as the modern capitalist systems but still, be socialist (or neo-communist). Furthermore, these capitalist dynamos can’t respond to the regrowth era and are already dinosaurs: our DMNC can accelerate growth or go into static mode: and it is free of austerity issues (at least in principle).
Update: the question arises, how explain the phenomenal growth of China in the last forty years? But as noted in the post the reason is due to capitalism imported into one area of China. In any case, rapid development is characteristic of all systems we can see: England took off after 1780 and was well developed even before the introduction of rail. Germany’s take after 1870 was well underway by 1910. Japan’s development was even faster and exceeded that of most western nations.
So it is misleading to point to the fast growth in China. You can’t really compare the two categories: the stage of the American economy is long since in an alternate universe and its phenomenal growth after the Civil War is typical, as in each case.
The discussion is meaningless because we don’t define socialism. And we have suggested the left should move on to a new terminology and set of definitions. If you call China socialist you are implying a system with gulags, mass murder and totalitarian government is socialist. The refusal of Marx to define his terms is the ultimate source of the confusion.
Our remedy is to abandon the Marxist confusion (much else is useful) and adopt failsafe definitions: DMNC, democratic market neo-communism. Something can’t be socialist without satisfying a broader definition, that includes democracy, socialist markets plus planning, a Commons that is beyond state capitalism, and a careful ecosocialist extension. By this definition China is a total nothing. The Maoists murdered a million capitalists, created an archaeo=communist monstrosity and then cheated by using capitalism to get itself out of a rut.
Our DMNC could failsafe the definition and shows the way to do the job right.
Donald Trump asking Xi Jinping for Karl Marx reading recommendations, especially anything on “spiritual pursuit” Four days ago Michael Roberts posted an article titled “China workshop: …
Source: Is China Socialist? | Louis Proyect: The Unrepentant Marxist
As we noted in the previous post, the terminal case of the Roman Empire was taken over by a strange religion, Christianity, that moved to try and repair the endstate of occidental civilization. In long run it did do that to do that to some degree.
Some might think that could happen again in modern times. But we can feel more or less confident that that won’t happen. Christianity belongs to another era and is really in its twilight. The emergence of Christianity is mysterious but we must suspect that some hidden teleology latent in the Judaic field suddenly spawned a continuation. Such speculations are risky and could impair our eonic model which so directly explicates at a vague high level the way the Israelite transition generated a monotheistic core and literature which then began to expand into a universal religion just at the dawn of the Roman empire. In the eonic model we can see that the Israelite core period from ca. 900 to 600 BCE is a typical ‘eonic transition’ and then after the Exile it crystallizes into a very strange tribal/national religion based on birth identity which then collides with the emergent Roman empire and here we see the mysterious birth of Christianity. We have passed beyond theistic explanations, so what is going on? We may never know: those at the start covered their tracks too well. But we can see overall that while Israelitism is a part of the eonic effect, Christianity is something else. The first in our terminology is ‘system action’ while Christianity is free action. Let us interject that ‘free action’ can be all sorts of things. But the core emerges out of Isrealitism and we suspect what jews always refused to accept that a larger religion of universal membership was latent, almost predicted, by Old Testament thinking. A series of tragic confusions appears from this strange state of affairs and we have to wonder if despite its massive success Chistianity and Israelitism soon Judaism foundered in their own complexity and produced the long history of antisemitism. But the restricted nature of the Israelite perspective had to make a radical turn to the universal and there the ‘devil’ entered the details (so to speak).
This history is about a god religion but nothing to do with god entering history. So we are left with a mystery.The Israelite case is clear as an eonic transition, but we suspect something else in the case of Christianity, beside its clear roots in Israelitism. But history leaves us with one spectacular clue: the parallel emergence of Mahayana. Axial interval yields two religions in spectacular parallel, (first stage) Buddhism ca. after 600 BCE, and Israelite monotheism. One theistic, the other atheistic)
We can see that the timing of this is a strange new mystery not a part of the eonic effect proper: the gestation of two universal religions, again in parallel: Christianity and Mahayana. There is something mysterious and the whatever that was it covered its tracks.
To return to our starting comment we can feel sure that the action of Christianity can never repeat itself and that to a high probability Judaism and Christianity will dissipate into secularism.
It is interesting to note that the slot taken up religion in antiquity has passed into leftist gestations, e.g. socialism/capitalism and there we can suspect the action of the future. But the marxist brand with its historical materialism has gone too far in the opposite direction and is a poor candidate for cultural regeneration. But we are under no obligation to take socialism in the Marxist sense, however apt some parts of that are. But historical materialism was strangely effective just at its moment: it made the socialist beginning a secular moment.
This ‘slot’ is not for a religion, but something that is once again the seeming chase plane effect. The eonic sequence generates a beginning and then sometimes sends a chase plane after. Christianity for the Roman Empire, and perhaps socialism for capitalism….
In any case the real history of Christianity has never been told andif anything the ‘god’ beliefs are a distraction. The religion category is worn out and we move to new categories. Chase pland isn’t entirely satisfactory, but is a start.
This book on China is compelling and invites comparison with the US. I should refrain instead, it is VERY hard to get it right, but some speculative warnings. There is something tragic about both C…
Source: US, China: US, beacon of democracy or continental rape by a bunch of hooligans…? – 1848+: The End(s) of History
Socialism is now a real part of the political landscape — while “capitalism” has never been more unpopular.
Source: Americans Are More Open to Socialism Than Ever
The world desperately needs a new formulation or framework for the left: a modified Marxist plus reformist package, would be useful, but one suspects that the reputation of Marxist ideology has been crippled by its legacy. And also by its confusions of theory.
The historical periodization of epochs in Marx is useless now, and seems like an ideological fix.
Feudalism is not a stage of history nor is capitalism.
We suggest below a much simpler periodization, one that could lead to a whole new set of studies of actual economies in world history, starting in the Paleolithic/Neolithic.
The point here is that socialism/communism need to be constructed. They can’t be prophesied by a theory without specifics.
Although theories of world history usually fail, our periodization as below suggests there is a hidden dynamic but it is not a set of economic epochs.
The ‘end of history’ argument is fallacious: socialism (communism) and democracy emerge in parallel in the modern period and ask for a hybrid blend of the two.
Marx beyond his theories saw the dilemma of liberalism, but the attempt to pitch democracy against communism failed disastrously.
We need to create a new kind of political system and we can’t screw it up as did the Bolsheviks….
A system of epochs done right….
August 30th, 2018 ·
The eonic effect shows the very simple (and still mysterious) solution to the question of historical epochs: Continue reading “World history beyond theory via periodization”
The left as we have noted is still mired in the failed legacy of Bolshevism/Stalinism. Beyond that, the legacy of Marxism is the ultimate source of that derailment. Stalinism shows almost every way the transition to communism can go wrong. This situation has left the current Marxist brand beyond salvage. And that could be good at a time when the onset of postcapitalism emerges on its own with the left mostly turning in circles.s
It is a bit late in the day to be still mucking about in Stalinism. Time to leave it all behind. Socialist need to defy the Marxist monopoly that his usurped the path to a sne postcapitalism.
Source: On the Stalin Question – Cosmonaut
Rewrite/repost from 2018
The left needs its marxist groups but they all need to reorient their thinking beyond the stale and counterproductive limits of older paradigms. If anything, the older left is the best safeguard against revolutionary change.
To start, marxism has a bad theory of history. This theory is demonstrably limited, indeed fallacious. No praxis can be based on a flawed theory, therefore any praxis that does isn’t going to work for a new social transformation. The bolsheviks used this theory and failed, they were so harebrained that they hardly count. Current marxists persist in all the details of this theory, and are not likely therefore to have a real opportunity. Why? Because marxism has a bad theory of history, and no praxis can be based on a flawed theory. If they get another chance they will end in the same hare-brained mess as before. Why? Because you can’t base a praxis on a false theory. Continue reading “Archive: Does socialism really need a science of history? the trap of theory”
Consider how different 2020 would have been if there had been a mass working-class party in existence intervening in events with a program that transcended the bounds of capitalism. The pandemic exposed the capitalists’ willingness to sacrifice human lives at the altar of profits, provoking a strike wave across numerous industries last spring. A mass socialist party could have given a coordinated expression to these struggles and unified them around a program of demands to defeat the virus and save countless lives.A mass party of, by, and for the working class would have cut across the rise of Trumpism and its distorted class polarization by tapping into the deep discontent in society and channeling it against capitalism.
We are over a century past the great surge of the Second International and the emergence of a global audience for marxism. So what happened and why is a repeat seemingly so impossible? The obvious answer is the legacy of Bolshevism and Stalinism. That and the failure to construct a viable socialist economy anywhere at all (exceptions?) in addition a mountain of books by critics have ‘exposed’ the issue of socialism and still others, and this is key, have critiqued Marx’s theories. Leftists express a knee-jerk defense at all points but they are a club or cult of the converted. There is no real public anymore for Marxism. But times change and socialism is making a comeback, it seems. Continue reading “Archive: The marxist foundation is dead, time to start over, time is short…//Building a Mass Socialist Party: Class Independence vs. the “Party Surrogate” Strategy “