A subject preaching ‘planning’ was never planned, and derailed at the start…
September 8th, 2018 •
We are constantly beset with propaganda about the failure of ‘communism’ but in fact it is better to say that it has never been tried. Marx/engels always refused to define what should be the outcome of the abstraction invoked and that seems to have left the russian revolution in the grips of the ad hoc, a ‘hack’ from the start that was never able to really get off the ground and soon derailed into a dangerous experiment without any guidelines for how to proceed. This resulted in figures like stalin claiming the confusion they created was ‘communism’, to the great propaganda future of their opponents.
If we define ‘communism’ as democratic, for example, then a stalinism outcome is not communist and should be considered fair game for cessation. The left could have operated this way in the early years in the early years of the russian revolution and spared the world a wasted opportunity gone sour.
Communism has never been tried…
May 4th, 2018 •
March 1st, 2018 •
The bolshevik era is a test case of the failure of marxist theory, yet we often fail to see why. The problem can be seen in the muddle over whether russia had to first pass through a stage of capitalism and variants of this confusion are visible in all factions, until lenin broke the logjam, but with an equally flawed formula.
We should recast the whole subject to a new formulation which can adopt a communist foundation from the start, but redefined to allow a developmental mix that can still include markets. Lenin almost got it right until he got it wrong, followed by stalin’s momumental lunacy which was never communism at all.
The point is that democracy and communism must emerge together in a match that can possible allow market economics to coexist in a complex mixture that is beyond the illusions of private property, the predatory fictions of ecological plunder of the Commons…
The bolshevik fallacies are really inherited from marx’s flawed analysis…
In general, there is no reason why development in the context of communism can’t be the basic starting point.
March 21st, 2017 •
We have tried to suggest a way out of the stalled left, stalled by marxist dogma among other factors.
I seriously doubt that in the US at least that the marxist legacy will work anymore either as theory or as praxis. It is however very difficult to even communicate with these idiots. Let us recall how marx struggled with theory and then seems to have given up as the task was completed ad hoc by engels. the whole initiative was far better served at the start in the period of the 1840’s when marx/engels reckoned in a simplified and very effective manner with the elements of capitalist critique. In a way the appearance of The German Ideology however began to token the onset of Big Theory in the reaction to hegelianism. The struggle for theory clearly exhausted marx who began to obsess over the completion of his work. We need to free ourselves of the dogmatic confusion that came into existence and that led the second international astray.
Anyway we have produced a path to a new approach: you can start this today without theories, in a set of simple issues about history, economic systems, and the constitutional definition of a society that can function as a form of neo-communism. It doesn’t even require the abolition of markets, and the whole task can be on of a transitional democratic experiment.
But we are out of time on the issue of climate and it is hard to see how the marxist world can be evaded in the creation of a new left. I can only recommend all this to just such marxists, given a sober warning they are in the way at this point.
We have proposed elements so simple they can be adopted without chronic perplexities (despite the near extravagance of the eonic model, which can be used in a simplified fragment) that plague marxists who are so confused they can’t function. But despite all our criticisms, marxists are the only group with a commitment to postcapitalism. We can suggest leaping out of one’s skin and remorphing to a new left. The eonic model is useful as a form of shock treatment:
Our suggestion is that we need a communist foundation in the Commons, with a hybrid system of planned economy and market economy with a lower sector in a semi-anarchist autonomous mode. Such an approach failsafe’s against the monstrosity created by bolshevism which was never really in the legacy at all, as many noted: we live in a fully developed capitalism in the so-called democratic context. We can move to something new with far greater effect and intelligence than the mass idiocy of the bolshevik derailment which in any case was hijacked by stalin. We have nothing to do with that, or with the monstrosities we see in the case of china (and even russia, still, in its putinesque degeneration from degenerate psudo-communism).
So much of the struggle over marxism is pointless sophistry. We need to open the window for some fresh air. While the issue of the eonic effect it perhaps too exotic for a practical movement it nonetheless answers to a classic query of the philosopher kant and can be taken as what we suspect is the case with a simple foundation in secular modernism as a new epoch in world history. The sudden appearance of modern capitalism (in reality it was invented ages ago) was immediately met with its dialectical complement, socialism/communism. This contrast is entirely apt as the system begins to explore a new a superior form of democracy/economy. As the planet starts into climate calamity the facile idiocies of capitalist obsession seem both out of date and grossly primitive.