One of the things that becomes clear from the ‘end of history’ question, dwelt on at length in Last and First Men, https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75650151/LFM_review_copy_selections.pdf, is the way that a communist revolution has to create a ‘rebirth of freedom’. That is either inspiring or a catch-22. The rapid decline of the integrity of the American system seems to be a great moment for the left to exploit, but the problem is that one can’t complain of the American decadent democracy and move to replace it with something even further from democracy. That was the dilemma of the Russian Revolution, which, however, had only to reckon with the Tsarist hell-zone.
This merely tells us that when we use the term ‘communism’ or ‘new communism’ we take out a semantic loan on a future set of definitions that can deal with this basic irony: the decree to intervene on decline that can end up in further decline. So the future communism must learn to deal with the dynamic of whole civilizations and to see if it can master the science of civilizational decline, to say nothing of ‘democratic disconbobulation’, viz. decline. A communist movement thus has to confront the most difficult of contradictions: the end of history must find democracy in search of communism, and communism in search of democracy. A revolution must almost by definition show an increase of freedom, anything less with drive discontent to fresh revolt.