Blueprint(s) of a semi-specified ‘democratic market neo-communism’…

Blueprint(s) of a semi-specified ‘democratic market neo-communism’…
July 22nd, 2018 •

To see the point about the failure to specify a practical bleuprint for communism by the marxist legacy we can point to our ‘Two Manifestos’, on ‘democratic market neo-communism’, and the relative specification of particulars. One has to admit at the start that this scheme is itself incomplete, but at least makes the point that the older marxist legacies were condemned to operate in a void, and then let gangster regimes take over the whole potential.
Here are a few things that must be specified in advance to create a viable communism, this particular version making a few new assumptions of its own, the first being that markets and capitalist markets are not the same: a market can exist under communism under certain conditions, the model here pointing to a constitutional communism that constructs a Commons. Once that is done the issue of markets falls into place next to a parallel sector of planning. This model requires the revolutionary expropriation of capital but it could be modified to an evolutionary version in which a majority votes in a new constitutional communism that will create a Commons…( tall order in both cases, but only because all these ideas have been discredited by bolshevism)
Here are some of the things that must be specified in this version:
the nature of a revolutionary (evolutionary) transition
the status of counterrevolutionary operatives trying to destroy the new foundation: the issue of arbritrary arrest, revolutionary detention and arrest and the legal rights of relevant parties: gulags are illegal in such a system, the detention of counterrevolutionaries must be considered carefully…
the question of the powers of a revolutionary cadre
the immediate declaration of the rights of citizens undergoing revolutionary transition
the illegality of arbitrary arrest by revolutionary agents
the existence of revolutionary observers and marshals to preserve revolutionary order and civil discipline as to rights and liberties
the status of surveillance in such a system…
the nature and transition to a Commons
the Commons in the context of extranational ‘rogue’ capital, trade relations with such
the national/transnational definition of such a Commons
the issue of socialism in one country and/or an international
trade relations in the context of socialism in one country
the steps to construct a three sector system: the market, planned, and ‘third sector’ fields of operation: the planned, market, and third/’anarchist’ sectors…
the nature of the market system as a way to forestall calculation debates…
the interaction of market and planed sectors….
the nature of the democratic system to come into being: a parliamentary system with no chance of financial corruption (all elections should be state run or regulated by fair witnesses, but open to challenge from external agents enforcing honesty, and fresh external party creations as relevant… etc…)
a strong foundation of economic rights, observed/enforcable by economic courts and labor unions
a balance of powers between legal, executive and parliamentary bodies
the nature of equality in such a complicated system: the foundation of a universal class as the end point of the social evolution of classes at the point of revolutionary transition
new bodies of ecological law to create an ecological socialism: a constitutional definition of ecological socialism
ecological courts to mediate economic/ecological contradictions/conflict
economic courts to mediate economic issues, planning decisions, the status of economic entities/corporations
the nature of the ‘communist entrepreneur’ and the nature of the ‘social capital’ licensed from the Commons
the relative transient inequality of wealth possible to communist entrepreneurs: strong wealth taxes, etc…but some degree of ‘equality wobble’ in such a complex system of different sectors: a new idea of ‘permanent revolution’ or readjustment as new marginal inequalities if any emerge in such a complicated mix
labor unions to consider the degree of social realization of economic rights: such unions are necessary because the economic foundation is already a nearly intractable complexity with unpredictable economic variations/wobbles
the nature of the executive branch and its powers: the executive can be isolated from economic social capital in a division of powers: its task to be the guardian of the Commons, and no doubt foreign policy
(in the american case the treatment of covert agencies, their abolition and enforced restart, assuming any such bodies are needed or at all wanted)
the issues of imperialism, militarism, armaments industries and the passage to new international beyond imperialist criminality and rogue state ops
the nature and fate of a revolutionary party transitioning to a multiparty parliamentary system
the separation of social capital and executive power: a system quite different from state capitalism
there can be a one party state of the executive but one limited to specific guardian status with no powers beyond guardianship of communist fundamentals and foreign policy issues…: a one party system on top of a three plus party system. The top ‘one party state’ is simply a finesse of limited powers of guardianship, perhaps with real platonic no-dacha guardians with free cafeteria meal-tickets who have renounced all property, ascetics of communism…
and this in relation to a two party parliamentary system with a wild card ‘third or more party’ slot for external innovations entering the fixed system
the overall system would be thus a four plus party system…
This is perhaps enough to start: a real neo-communist (the term ‘communist’ can never really be used again in isolation from its ‘neo-‘, the same is true for the terms ‘marxist’ and ‘leninist’) system as we see is VERY complex but some such specification is necessary in a world in paranoid fear of bolshevik/stalinist legacies. A complete conceptual rupture with the past is necessary. Any such projection is essential given the howls of protest inevitably arising in any system that is too vague to preempt stalins and authoritarian napoleon figures (recall the ‘revolutionary’ post-revolutionary character of the historical napoleon…)
We have also considered a ‘third sector’ below a certain threshold: a sort of ‘wild zone’ of open social entities that allows a kind of let go for very small economic enterprises and institutions. Any such economic entity that becomes too large is immediately expropriated to the Commons, but a certain amount of openended social let go should be allowed (and it might be a source of innovative socialist entities)….
For the old left to have embarked on leninist social reconstruction with absolutely none of the above settled in advance was a calamity and one that may have destroyed the whole idea for good.
But trying again my be inevitable so we must not wreck a second chance or allow idiot marxism to spoil the chance. How ‘stages of production’ theory misled a century of leftists and wrecked man’s socialist opportunity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s