History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Between social democratic and bolshevik failed modes…

February 7th, 2018 · No Comments

We have both embraced and critiqued marxism in order to make a point, a point somewhere between failed social democratic thinking and flawed theoretical perspectives in marxism: our idea of democratic market neo-communism is taken to find the middle ground between social democratic ‘new dealism’ and the rigid ‘communism’ of the second international. We have suggested that if a system can be reached that puts private property into a Commons we have a flexible situation beyond social democratic illusion, yet free of the obsessively top-down controlled economy, that doesn’t work.
The point here is that capitalism in fact doesn’t work, despite its endless propaganda and that further nonetheless a path that remorphs the given legacies rather than attempting to completely eliminate them: our three sector DMNC: Two Manifestos This approach creates a possibly transitional form of communism that can function day one, but only if the expropriation of the bourgeoisie has taken place. The latter can even be simply declared legally a function of the Commons but let (temporarily) to the origonal owners. This system makes no pretense to being complete or final and needs the context of both a ‘socialism in one country’ and an international, but it provides a remorphed variant of democratic capitalism: we can’t accuse it of being some utopian fiction: it is practical, functional, and also has it characteristic ‘lower indifference level’ below which a kind of ‘let be’ allows a mixture of possibilities (check out the manifestos).
As we have noted many times marx’s stages of production theory, by rigidly delimiting the phases of feudalism, capitalism, and communism as epochs of economic history, has confused all parties.
What we need is a kind of ‘american revolution’ to create communism as democracy.
There is no excuse any more for the denigration of postcapitalist possibilities. We already have a planned capitalism: we can certainly manage to make it socialist…

If self-driving cars are possible, then planned economies are possible…AI and the twilight of ‘free markets’
December 11th, 2017 ·

In many ways we already live in a system of market socialism…the right senses this and wants to create the ultimate ‘pure capitalism’ but we can see that they are doomed to failure. In fact, we need to move toward a much fuller ‘market socialism’, if necessary by revolutionary means. In the age of AI (artificial intelligence) we can suspect that if self-driving cars are possible, then planned economies are possible…

Binding ‘market socialism’ to neo-classical economics as critiqued by Stiglitz was not my meaning. My discussion began with neo-classical economics as junk science. I am simply in search of something that could provide a workable hybrid of ‘markets’ + ‘socialism’ on the way to a genuinely founded postcapitalist economy. Stalinism shows that a controlled planned economy is theoretically possible, if desperately undesirable. Mises strike 1. Chinese ‘*market socialism’ in the context of the US/China hybrid economy shows a highly successful (sort of) socialism, in reality a fragment in a larger system, but… Mises strike 2. The issue is not markets but democracy. If the planet is at risk the two above choices can’t be ruled out. We are being outshouted by Mises-style dogma, albeit with a point to its critique of fully planned economies of certain types.

The point is we are not required to pay lip service to Mises/market propaganda to consider postcapitalist possibilities that are not sentimental social/democratic fancies. A vigorous system is needed that calls itself socialism that is non-totalitarian and a hybrid that can associate on an international level in a federation of states cooperating to control global capitalism at large at its most destructive, and thence at home, to a degree sufficient to create a populist/socialist economic life for the majority (the universal class) with a defined from of democratic life. Clearly this is not impossible.
There is one incremental step beyond this ‘market/socialist hybrid’, a proto-communist system where the principle of the commons is invoked to make all large-scale industrial level properties revert to the commons. This system could apply ‘*market socialism’ with stewards of the properties in question, etc… Such a system could adopt what is already the case, partial degrees of planning. etc…

This set of options is more than sufficient to consider the issues of socialism/neo-communism in the sense of a practical movement.

An experimental pre-communist hybrid socialism (‘*market socialism’) can thus focus its energies on the value/cultural/political questions of new form of socialist society, one evolving to a full neo-communism.

But the first stage is viable as an economic system, as a socialist community in the making with a new politics that is beyond the one-party state, with a set of political institutions that are freed from the political domination of capital…The point here is to stop being paralyzed by Mises loudmouths. In fact a lot of people in the Mises legacy are stuck with what they didn’t intend: the clear failure of capitalism. They themselves are looking for a way out of Mises’ own claims…strike 3 a work in progress…

We are running out of time here, and while the economic calculation debates can continue we have enough to start… The climate agreement just inked is a transparent fraud, despite making some progress… We need a movement that can work toward a realistic postcommunism.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment