History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: the template of a neo-communist revolution

July 29th, 2017 · No Comments


Our discussions of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ are an attempt to deal with the obsessive compromises that always overtake leftist positions resulting in the usual social democratic wishing well of ‘social democratic’ fantasy. This combination, DMNC, itself seems like compromise, but it implies something quite revolutionary, roughly the same perspective as the original Communist Manifesto (which was not specific about ‘market socialism’): the expropriation of the capital or of the bourgeoisie. And the result is a Commons in which everyone has a stake. And a legal right to participate in. This quite different from the situation of the bolshevik domination by the one-party state: resources in the Commons would be subject to mediation by legal, ecological courts and independent planning bodies, etc…

The point here is that while this combination might have its own problems it is a de facto simulation of a result (we should be able to do this with computers these days) that answers to the issues of revolution, communist economy (or socialist if you prefer, but the term ‘socialist’ has degraded in meaning, what we mean is still clear if we say ‘communist’), and most of all democratic politics. But what is democratic politics? Our framework has all the trappings of democracy but it goes further: democracy requires an equality of access to social and economic resources, a Commons, one that is not controlled by private capitalists, we are thus well beyond Lockean property rights.
We can just as well adopt the model of the american revolution here: it was an anti-imperial war of a colonial system that produced a result in two stages: revolution and constitutional foundation. Our task is to remorph this basic template’s two stages to an international as a ‘socialism in one country’ (it can work both ways) as a revolutionary transition, and a constitutional foundation phase creating a democracy that must be communist to be democratic at all.
Our situation is not the same as the case of Russia and its revolution: we already have an advanced capitalism, and we already have a democratic template.
This does leave the question of nationalism versus an international: it is a strength or a weak spot of this model. The point is to create a stepping stone possibility of communism in one nation state that can mediate economic relations with a larger whole, the international and/or outstanding capitalist states.
It would be good to do this in the US case, because its relative strength could demonstrate a leadership that isolated entities might not be able to match…

The question of ‘markets’ has been befuddled by the assumptions that lead to ‘state capitalism’. Our model in principle provides a way past the confusion.
It is within the realm of possibility this could be arrived at via an evolutionary path. But the problem is global, transnational, and cannot be solved by the decisions of, say, the american electorate. The whole must be considered and there is no democracy in place that can resolve the contradiction.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment