History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: evolutionary/revolutionary…

May 14th, 2017 · No Comments

R48G: once again we challenge the revolutionary challenge with an evolutionary proposal, and if the right wants to change the constitution so should the left…http://darwiniana.com/2017/05/12/r48g-the-revolutionary-imperative/
As usual we apply a counterargument to our ‘revolutionary promo’ with an evolutionary theme.
This can lead to any number of outcomes, but the value lies in the reminder that while ‘revolution’ might seem unrealistic, the net equivalent is needed because the issue fragmentation of too much activism is self-undermining.

If conservatives are close to being able to rewrite the constitution it is certainly time for a new socialist left to consider the same…from the left. Short of that a third party based on a profoundly radical leftism must attempt to break the party monopoly now in place. There are all sorts of communists/socialists already doing this, where are they going wrong?

In fact our manifestos and postmarxist analysis shows why the conventional marxist/socialist left can’t win the trust of the mainstream anymore. We have proposed a total rewrite of the whole game, one that can disengage from the ruined reputations of communists still trying to explain why Lenin got it right. The question of Lenin is clear enough: if society collapses a radical leninist complot might will restage itself. But it would be a complete waste to repeat the old Lenin. So what do we do? We need to recompute the issue of communism, and we have done that in a broad spectrum of potentials, basically our Democratic Market Neo-communism.
This framework can be adapted to a proposal for a third party movement on the left and it is engaged on its own terms: we don’t have to defend marxism, leninism, phony communisms: the blend is a robust synthesis of opposites: a Commons, the (legal or other) expropriation of capital in the large, a planned sector, a market sector (with resources licensed from the Commons), and a third indifferent sector at a lower threshold that can be relatively autonomous with a dash of anarchism.
This framework is not sui generis and doesn’t have to answer to the marxist/leninist canon. It is time for marxists to transform themselves into a new movement or study resource, and to drop the term ‘marxism’, stop trying to resurrect Capital from the dead, and to get smart about neoliberal economics and the new solutions to the calculation debate.

If ‘revolution’ is the device to think holistically about reformism, reformism might be the device to think practically about revolution, but the path to constitutional change is seemingly a long shot. Really, the right is doing just this?
Our framework could formulate as a third party platform, and its consideration of the universal class is completely tuned to a working class focus, save only that all classes in the final analysis are moving into a single integrated ‘universal formation’.

In fact the working class analysis was never quite correct, the reason for its many failures. To be blunt it lead to the mass murder of hordes of capitalists. We can’t murder capitalists: they will join the universal class in some form. A communist movement must be about everyone but invoke the working class to prevent the crypto-usurpation of change by the bourgeoisie. Fine, but in the end there is a different but related approach: any and all elements that can form a vanguard (as Lenin knew that was inevitable, finally) consisting of the joiners from all class formation who will operate according to principles of equality as socialism/communism. The emphasis on the working class tends to attempt to appeal to groups that have demands and the result ends up in a stalemate of trying to raise wages for a grumpy set of ‘workers’ who aren’t revolutionary. Why not invoke the universal class and make the way to deal with the working class partly top down with a set of communist/socialist principles for politics/economy and culture? This has in any case to preempt the formation of a new elite (and the working class approaches failed badly here in the bolshevik case) but in the end the working class is not a gang of saints but a near synonym for the ‘majority’ center of gravity, and that now includes a mix of class formations with a hybrid of middle and working classes.

We are hardpressed to deal with climate change and that would require a more general vehicle than the focal ‘working class’ fixation. The Universal Class at the focus of a neo-communism must in any case produce a very robust platform of economic populism and economic rights so there is in fact no contradiction. In fact this approach could far better serve the working class and would at the same time force the issue of all class formations entering into harmony.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment