Interesting article on the questions of marxism and communism.
This issue has persisted with a studied ambivalence here, as we approach and retreat from marxism in pursuing ‘communism’. I am not up to much of the fashionable philosophy that emerges in Zizek: having pursued philosophy via the ‘macro model’ in WHEE where I go in search of philosophy as a macro induction process, or stream and sequence duo, and arrive at Kant and stay/stop at Kant. Kant is the peak, with Plato, and everything seems to fall off rapidly after that. Kant was the last real philosopher. And he was too much the core liberal, but he also gave birth to a communism growing out of his liberalism. Classic. Perfect, before we forget him to do something practical.
That challenge to horizontal philosophy is too severe and we can adjust such a harsh measure, after we get its useful insight, but at this point I think I can pronounce the modern left as being stuck in a philosophy quagmire. We don’t need it. We need practical models. I cannot impose discipline on this farce, nor is it helpful to preach Kant, since I have barely even studied him, but I think that a critique here can help, if it is not too divisive, to focus attention, as in this interesting interview, of the practical definitions of communism (and democracy). We need a practical revolution that can succeed via a group of disciplined revolutionaries who don’t follow the classic lead up to the Russian revolution (but who slipping into that line could recover) and end up with a system of politics, communist economy, and democracy, that can realize as a practical system. That’s not so easy, but the American revolution shows the phasing, at least, with one crucial aspect: the ability to grant freedom to the many in the phase of the revolutionary insurrection completed (the revolution still incomplete). That can happen if the public begins to sense the rightness of postcapitalism, and the rightness, stated clearly of ‘communism’ as the realization of ‘democracy’. Which isn’t liberalism, and which isn’t….defined…The term has barely been defined. We can see this if we follow figures like Rousseau before the term crystallized as electoral ‘democracy’. Not everyone at that time thought that the real meaning. So, the real meanings of ‘communism’ and ‘democracy’ are up in the air, and we have case of the Russian Revolution, as clear strike out, strike One, very ominous. So these terms now have been able to be ‘up in the air’ all over again since 1989, and a new combination isn’t easily arrived at. Can we arrive at a way to model the different possibilities? It seems clear in the semantic chaos that democracy fails because its lack an element of communism, and communism fails/failed because it lacks the element of democracy.
The end of history muddle like a dog chasing its tail.