History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Can our DMNC solve the issues of bureaucracy and free trade?

March 6th, 2018 · No Comments


The previous two posts, on Chavez, and Trump’s tariffs, set a challenge for our new model of a ‘democratic market neo-communism’: can we really solve the problem of bureaucracy? and, what is the stance of this form of communism toward ‘free trade’, etc…?

Both questions are excellent and in reality our model doesn’t fully solve such problems, but we can suggest a dozen ‘airy/fairy’ speculative answers (real answers must be found also in postrevolutionary practice, but with essential ‘prophetic/predictive’ failsafes): our DMNC is rich in structure and variants and is probably a match for these potentially fatal difficulties. But the whole scheme is a bit inchoate (and has endless variants)

First, bureaucracy: Alan Wood eloquently cites Chavez’ completely right invocation of the working class as the resolution of bureaucracy. The problem I have there is that the solution is already there and failed: if you invoke and empower the working class why won’t they simply become that new bureaucracy? who are these Venezuelan bureaucrats? Oligarchs or working class?
I can invent five question mark solutions on the spot: 1. create an ascetic revolutionary class that will carry the revolution with no personal property and with a particular discipline, 2. police the bureaucracy with another bureaucracy fixed in a legal mode, 3. set term limits…4.acknowledge the impostor bureaucrats as system outcomes but make economic populism and constitutional communism legal requirements, 5. …more on #1: consider a political class of ‘platonic guardians’ who are isolated from economic self-interest, etc…
I think a judicious attack on the problem with input from other leftists can resolve these problems once we know in advance that a revolutionary process is going to produce the bureaucracy problem…it is not necessarily a question of preventing that but of dealing with it as it arises…

Second, the issue of free trade is complex. We see an example such as China shows a ‘communism’ wiped out by free trade. But in fact it was never a communism in our sense so that is that.
We have invoked and retreated from the idea of an international: we create a form of socialism in one country with sufficient autonomous economic localization to maintain social integrity
…but this can certainly indulge in a high degree of free trade, not absolute or able to disempower workers, especially with parallel socialist systems in that international, but also with probably predatory external capitalist systems outstanding: the stance would be ambivalent: the external system by not operating via a Commons would be a in de facto state of conflict in on the way to a global Commons in the international but as the system expands the pressure on such rogue capital would mount.I would say, interact any way via some forms of trade, eyes peeled toward predators and with definite intent to make that entity join the developing international. If not, the local socialist system has any number of ways to both interact economically and regulate external capitalist globalization.
Such a system, if made viable, would as a success attract a host of new friend socialisms to a putative new international…

Not a hundred percent here, but the point is to anticipate the problems latent in the model…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment