History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Monopolizing the communist idea

April 12th, 2018 · No Comments

We need a critical review of the ‘communist idea’ given the domination by the marxist version which led to the bolshevik version. The version given by Marx/Engels was inchoate and also included some fallacies about what revolutionary communism would be. This led to the classic ‘calculation debate’ about which most marxists in the classic cadre were unable to deal with.
We have tried to suggest a spectrum of definitions of communism (in our Two Manifestos) that will drive thinking to be ready in advance with a workable communist system that is innoculated against stalinist, i.e. a democratic revolution in a communist package…

A monopoly on the communist idea?
February 8th, 2018 ·

Although trying to make changes in marxist theory could lead to something even worse the fact remains that the communist idea needs to have more than one interpretation. The current formulas are almost antiques…

Beyond the marxist monopoly of the communist idea…
October 22nd, 2017 ·

The left has tied its head knots with theory, theory that doesn’t really work, but which has turned into a kind of dogma. The whole question of socialism has been frozen in place in terms of a legacy that was too complicated, confusing, and poorly defined.

It shouldn’t be all that hard to create a viable socialist system if we get out of the straight jacket of Marx’s misdefinition of the problem. Marx posited that a set of stages of history would bring communism to capitalism even as the latter replaced feudalism, etc…This theory isn’t really successful and has confused the issue. A more cogent formulation might simply ask for a communist foundation, as a set of axioms creating a Commons: resources from the commons would become a social entity (and not the same as state capitalism) mediated as economic process not unlike the market version save that the question of private property is superceded. The issue of the working class has also confused discussion. In fact, the idea of a ‘universal class’ is really the same as the working class but focuses on the real working class which is much larger than the traditional cliche of workers in factories. The tradition of working class focus is a great one, and is easily adaptable to our larger conception but at this point the problems of social reconstruction are far more complex that the question of industrial labor. We may even be leaving the era of factories and workers. And we confront climate change and its call for a radical revolution beyond the factors of production: an ecological framework that just might lead to a world of no-growth economics…
The idea of communism as a fixed stage beyond capitalism failed to specify what was to be done, and stalinism filled that void. We need to consider capitalism, or liberalism, and communism as constructivist projects in tandem rather than in opposition. We can even have a system of markets in the context of a Commons. The whole nexus of concepts was misdefined from the start in order to create an effective propaganda about the inevitability of communism succeeding capitalism. In fact, the illusion that capitalism was a stage of history has if anything made the problem worse as we allowed a flawed format to be ‘normal’ as a phase. In reality, the task was to do the job right and create from the start a democratic socialism with elements of both planned and market factors. The market factors proceed without the confusions of private property by reclaiming the entities of ‘primitive accumulation’: it is simply a species of plunder that animates the whole capitalist scheme. Constructing a real socialist communism ought to be as transparent as anything produced in the capitalist legacy: the two are remorphable versions of each other, but with the profound difference of a Commons…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment