A look at the lead up to the coming of the Russian Revolution shows the opposite: the stolid but successful work of the Second Internationale and the creation of a worker’s party operating on electoral principles, and this was the creation finally of Marx/Engels, whose views after 1848 changed gears putting revolutionary mode in the background, springing out at key moments, to be sure, e.g. the period of the Commune.
So one need not apologize for a softer take on neo-communism: it is not a form of compromise in fact, but a study of the space of possibilities.
The same result could easily occur, a shift to revolutionary mode in the onset of future/proximate chaos, like climate warming. The case for this can and should carry its own dialectical complement, and the ‘postcapitalist’ left also confronts something very drastic: the terminal state of American democracy and its criminal extravaganza of 9/11 and before that the whole degeneration starting with the invention of the CIA.
This perspective faces a dilemma: the older revolutionary era brought the covert agency phenomenon to the fore. A new communism has to do better than be dominated all over again by a secret police. So what does our ‘Red Fortyeight Group’ have to say about ‘spy world’ government?
But we have to disown this Second Inernationale legacy now, even as its core is recycled in a continuity/discontinuity of thought.
The source is then the ‘communists’ who came before Marx in the wake of the French Revolution. A new communism absorbs the core of marxism: theory and ideology, class analysis, but proceeds to a more contemporary context in terms of globalization, neo-classical economic illusion (theory and ideology), the neo-liberal endgame, with a recommendation to adopt a slightly stylized focus on the Universal Class as a superset of the ‘proletariat’ or proletariats. The advantage of this is that an assorted group of activists can serve to ‘wake up’ the others, e.g. the working class, which is too easily neutralized, as in the past generation. The Universal Class also includes the ‘agricultural’ sectors, for example. In general an analysis of the multiple components beside the working class is needed in the current contradictory situation where a revolutionary proletariat in the US, at least, is no longer very likely. This kind of electoral communism/socialism would likely drift into social democratic oblivion unless it is correctly focused toward a (majoritarian) transition beyond private property. It is necessary to explore the host of things that all this isn’t but which could be way stations to some finality:
a long list of ?? question mark compromised versions:
a market socialism where the core of large scale capital is state owned, state run, but possibly still run by individual entrepreneurs
the system can bargain with such entrepreneurs allowed a brief phase of profit before the entity defaults to a socialist definition
this would imply small fluctuations in class resurgence/abolition
agriculture as a mixed state run system with a large small scale farmer culture
a semi-anarchist cut-off line below which an economic culture is left to itself, within regulated limits
a populist program of jobs, education, and living space/culture/communes, health welfare
a new solution to the issues of one-party state domination with combined democratic, republican politics with defined rights and constrained economic rights
In general, why is it anti-democratic to control the industrial zone of known perpetrators of ecological disaster?
The field of questions implied in the previous question suggests that a populist neo-communism is coming into view, if only the left doesn’t blow it all over again….