History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

From petty bourgeois bolshevik party hack to platonic guardian

October 30th, 2015 · No Comments


The first link is to a post here from yesterday. The second is exterior: while of the greatest interest we should note that the term ‘revolution’ is not used correctly by left activists of the Progressive movement legacy. It is evolutionary activism, and at this point we are in a wishing well mode, hoping that maybe maybe the OWS will remorph into something that can endure after Sanders, should he win or fail to win the next election.

My prior point is that revolution means a change of government after forcible overthrow of the previous. Is this a hopelessly quixotic goal? MY point is that even if it is we should still create the necessary program and strategy as a failsafe because events can change rapidly and create opportunities for which we are not ready.

I think a revolutionary group should clearly create a tolerant umbrella for activist ‘social/democratic’ ‘new new deal’ types, with a realistic attitude given failure, one that has a program in place. In this context, Sanders is an invaluable ground breaker for something still more radical. But in the end we are confronted with a global situation that requires a global solution.
We can’t just moan and groan about the american middle class, jobs, and minimum wage. The Coltan miners of Congo, the child labor in Bengaladesh and the Iphone/Foxcoon proletariat are not part of the American electorate though clearly part of the American economy.

We confront a last ditch situation: global revolution or nothing. So we should prepare.
We once had a complete program in the Second Internationale (the later ones created nothing new) which in turn was based on marxism which in its source was not marxist but French. We don’t therefore have to let marxists monopolize the revolutionary left, if there is one remaining. We should however see the rough cogency of marxism and sample its tenets for a new platform:
the platform should be neo-communist: the abolition of the private property aspects of the bourgeois means of production. This is still vague and needs redefinition.
the theories of marxism are out of date and should be scrapped in favor of broad studies of economics in its later aspects
we need a philosophy broader than historical materialism and its theory of history which is to ambitious and easily challenged
this can be replaced with what is already there: the influence of economics on ideology, class and politics taken as descriptive or hortatory sociology (theories set up leftists for failure)
it is not true that economics determines history: the larger culture is a resource beyond economics and the source for a revolutionary postcapitalism
historical materialism has declared war on religion, but this was a worthy battle with weapons easily defeated by religionists of all stripes: a new set of axioms needs to start over
it is not the task of communism to turn humanity into atheists…a looser dialectical approach is needed

we need a platform that won’t degenerate into covert agency domination, mass murder, and an elite of bourgeois communists in a one-party state
the government of communism can’t be owned and operated by a one-party system
that government can’t be totalitarian or a dictatorship
the issues of economy and property must be mediated by legal bodies structurally independent of government
leadership should learn from Plato, play the role of guardianship, and divest from all property during any given period of office, etc…

The old marxist left is almost moribund and needs to either get a wake up call or be bypassed. We are out of time here and need to find a path to global/local revolution. It would awfully nice to ‘turn’ the US dot.gov first, and proceed from there, but…well, fill in the blanks: this post isn’t finished…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment