The nature of the implicit question is really about what I have been talking about since the OWS flatlanded, next to the constant ‘what I really mean is communism but I won’t ever use the term’.
You can, of course, define the succession to capitalism in other terms, but unless you specify that all we can do is suspect you are so afraid of the CIA that you will muffle whole words like a ventriloquist. The dummy did it.
To be fair, mentioning communism causes the mind to recycle old cliches over and over again, so it is possibly a demand for a creative reworking of both ‘communism’ as an idea and postcapitalism as its surrogate en passant.
We have ample evidence for the failure of communism, but the worse failure of capitalism is coming to the fore, and we discover in final astonishment that, after this sacrifice in the name of markets’, the capitalists now want to dismantle the middle class. That’s a sad question, was the Industrial Revolution with capitalism really worth it?
Whatever the case we must discipline our chaotic thinking on the subject of economics: we don’t have a public discourse capable of handling the dynamics of economy. All we have is a prostituted mathematics made to issue economic sophistry, and a bunch of very smart people not smart enough to grasp their delusional tendencies beside the infallible ability to confuse the less smart. That’s also a failure of meritocracy.
So I think Last and First Men is the token of a first step to answering the question:
All the pieces are there in a format that can both embrace and bypass antiquated marxist thought patterns. So the next step of the Marchers is to march past marxism without betraying the idea of a true ‘communism’ at the end of capitalism.
Mincing your words to fool the CIA won’t work: you are already on their hit list. Best be ready to go down fighting, for the future men to come. Marches are a bit of fantasy here, and a useful way to clear one’s throat. From there…