We have essentially already written this ‘book’ and the result was Toward a New Communist Manifesto, which needs a new version already.
Looking at the material from The Socialist Register (previous post, I can’t afford the full read) it would seem that the idea of revolution is starting to resurface (let’s brag it is in part the initiatives here, but we are beyond the pale for the classic groups here, as usual I have no place with the marxist cult), but it seems that the break with the past needed is still not there.
We have suggested a number of radical proposals, but let us interject that we must do something difficult: reanimate classic marxism and yet break with it completely. If you use the term ‘marxism’ your initiative is dead, period. One billion people who could profit from marxism detest it completely, thoroughly brainwashed, and not so brainwashed: well aware of the classic failure. And marxism isn’t the brilliant concoction it claims to be. Capital is a total morass that Marx couldn’t finish, because his theories were open to question, and swiftly attacked. So it might help to simply start from scratch. Not completely: picking up on the momentum of the early modern democratic revolutions and their saga of revolutionary socialism from the period of 1848, etc…We are given a prophecy of a future, the last revolution. We must focus on what that will really be without Leninist preconceptions. The situation of the bolsheviks/mensheviks was alien to our own: a communist revolution aborted due to the circumstance of Tsarist reaction, lack of capitalist development, and the absence of a previous democratic (in quotation marks) revolution. Lenin’s hatred of liberalism, while hardly surprising, turned out to be destructive. What other options did he have in fact?
Let it all slide into the past. What we have proposed then is a keynote from the classic Manifesto of Marx/Engels platforming the basic gesture of communism, and then fastforwarding to the era, our own, of neoliberal reaction and climate change. We need a revolutionary consideration, in tandem with an evolutionary one, that in many ways is a radical version of the OWS. (But the latter was a suspiciously artificial and brief impulse, a bad guide in other ways). That simply means a novel movement, but one that shows a creative recursion in new language of classic marxist themes.
We have proposed a version of democratic market neo-communism that can be a hybrid of liberalism and communism: a multi-sector system that shows planned subsets, market subsets, and a threshold cutoff for a semi-autonomous society with a mixture of cultural and economic elements.https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf. The politics of such a system, as suggested, would again be a hybrid of a one party, multiparty state: with a strong but limited executive branch of guardians/presidents, congresses and representative democratic entities, economic and ecological courts and planning entities, the market sector showing a highly regulated yet relatively autonomous entrepreneurial sector…etc: the details invoked are very considerable. But the point is that classic communism may have misunderstood the situation. What we need is basic communism: the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. With that as a constitutional foundation we can independently determine the nature of the economy to go with it: we can create more than one solution, with elements of different economic systems in tandem. The market sector could be far superior to the classic brand because it would be regulated yet autonomous, with a system of entrepreneurs able to profit from their work without a disruption of class equalization. This system might consider something we could call differential equalization: a basic trend toward equality but with a variety of vestigial class elements on their way to absorption in a universal class.
We have spoken of a ‘universal class’ instead of the ‘working class’. In the US we have lost the working class. We can get it back under the rubric of the universal class, along with a far larger general pool of potential revolutionary subclasses. Obsession with the working class has made marxists very inflexible. And there is not reason we can’t make the ‘working classes (there are several)’ a spearhead of the universal class.
Look at the Trump era: the american working class was evidently inadequate to the task of radical societal action. It shouldn’t have been surprising.
The problem here is the international context. But if we could focus on the transition to postcapitalism in the US, the international context would follow in a far larger field.
The United States is such a corrupt morass that it is disorienting to even think about what needs to be done with respect to its imperialism, milit-indust-complex, covert agencies, the whole cancer that has so rapidly taken over the whole legacy.
This approach is far superior to the posturing of the social democratic left whose compromises are understandable but which have repeatedly failed. A foundation of constitutional communism would make all the difference.