The discussion of communism is hampered by the historical legacy of Bolshevism, the refusal of Marx/Engels to be specific about what was meant by the term, and the fear in an era of escalating surveillance of even mentioning the subject, on the grounds that a reference to communism is a reference to revolution, and this in the current place of residence of the source of the discussion. The question can be clarified by considering that the practical strategy for a communist transition is far too unspecified to be more than a ‘gendanken experiment’, and that the reality is that there must be free speech on the question of social change. The discussion in LFM is, in any case, purely theoretical, as much as I might like it to be otherwise.
The real task of the book is the clear away the confusions of the ‘end of history’ meme, and in the process illustrate a different historical framework than that of historical materialism, which is an acquired taste of various sectors of the secular culture, one quite unacquired by more than a billion of the those who might profit (sic!) from a postcapitalist economy. We need to be constructing postcapitalist models in public in considerable detail, with a hope to specific on strategies of transition. This can coexist with the spectrum of activist change which is now pervaded with Gandhian, anarchist, and isolated-factor proposals.
We are entering a unique moment: the charge of utopianism applied to communist ideology has boomeranged on the critics as it appears to better characterize the increasingly unrealistic promotions of free markets. Nonetheless, it is important to devise a safe strategy here, since the dawning realizations, from careful studies of the 9/11 conspiracy data, suggests a mafia of psychopaths at work behind the scenes of conventional governmental fair play can’t be assumed.