or the full text:
It is a bit repetitious to constantly reiterate a core marxist theme, but…
I think that a revolutionary neo-communism will become a new cultural average as the crisis of capitalist climate change starts to reach panic levels. It is of course possible that some ‘fix’ via geoengineering will ‘save the day’, but even if that happens it is obvious that capitalism is playing Russian roulette with humanity on more than just climate grounds. So we are coming to the ‘back to the wall’ point. The hardest problem is to see beyond growth economics and the leftist need to make populism the core pitch to the public. But that strategy is already in failure mode.
Last and First Men tries to construct a modified marxist neo-communism that learns from but attempts a radical break with the stale versions of that canon.
Some of the issues:
the idea of the Universal Class, to be a superset of the working class.
a new view of history beyond historical materialism which has a brittle theory of history
a critique of darwinism, and its concealed social darwinism. That’s a tough sell on the left, but the real Marx resonates here, and we must be ready to confront elites who wish to stage mass depopulation calamities in the name of survival of the fittest theory
an expose of neo-classical economics, and also a recognition that the socialist calculation debate, which the left can win, is a real one. The left cannot pretend here, and yet that is what most leftists books do
a practical and realizable set of programs on the spectrum beyond social democratic illusions, to establish the basic axioms of a neo-communism in the expropriation of industrial capitalists, with the possibility of true compromises on the spectrum of ‘market communism’. Such systems can be made viable, and in a crisis allow easier realization. But we can’t indulge in fantasies here: the overall trend to some form of full neo-communism is perhaps inevitable, …
Let’s face it: the Second International era completely botched the gambit here, and may have crippled the whole possibility. It didn’t have to be that way. From the beginning it was admitted that Tsarist Russia couldn’t be a platform for postcapitalism, although it has an overall situation tempting the risky attempt, which wasn’t communism, in its gross failure…
Can we call any of this realizable? Even if not we must think this way to flush out the deadly fake thinking being used by people on the left, e.g. the talk of ‘revolution’ to mean something short even of ‘social democratic’ reformism.
We must be clear that if we mean reformism, we will say so, and if we use the term ‘revolution’ it means a violent overthrow of the current regime. The division, however, is not absolute, but it is certainly ‘positive definite’.
I could be wrong: serendipity rules, and most revolutions were unexpected developments in moments of crisis, so…