…like a bad pointer in c programming…

…like a bad pointer in c programming…
September 15th, 2018 •
The projection of stages of production theory into the future resembles a ‘bad pointer’ in c programming: a placeholder that points to nothing suddenly causes s system crash because a random value takes over the pointer…The failure to specify what they were trying to do made the early communists act incoherently….
Advance specification
June 5th, 2018 •

Click to access Public

We have noted twice today the way ‘stages of production’ theory created a kind of fallacious overall view on the part of marxists as to the way capitalism would yield to communism.
But the later was never really defined and it was thought that nothing should be said in advance on the subject. But it seems clear that marx thought the key point was that communism would completely abolish the market. In retrospect that seems the wrong approach.
The point of communism is the issue of private property and primitive accumulation. The question of markets versus planning is more complex and can lead to miscalculations.
Our DMNC model creates a tool based on a kind of triad to try and prepare in advance for a new kind of system, yet one not so destructive as that which threw the russian revolution into a set of catastrophes…
Our model of ‘democratic market communism’ doesn’t assume that communism inevitably follows capitalism because capitalism isn’t a stage of history: it is continuous set of processes in history and then a kind of ad hoc frankenstein of the period of the industrial revolution. It was seen immediately that a response to this phenomenon was necessary. And marx/engels codified these insights, but in the process they got too theoretical. It would be more practical to consider that the state of society can be continuously (and/or by revolution) adjusted to both the phenomenon of markets and the forms of socialism.
Our DMNC model states in advance the rough outline of what it is going to do and consider a ‘triad’ of three sectors: a planned sector, a market economy based on a Commons however in which entrepreneurs license resources from the Commons. A third sector is a kind of indifference zone below a certain threshold which is simply left to its own, more or less. This model integrates a triad of opposites and evades the kind of hopeless mess made by bolshevik socialism.
It must include a strong authority to protect communism, plus a democratic parliamentary system completely protected from any kind of external financial control.
There is not enough detail here either, perhaps, but the point is that ‘communism’ is a set of axioms about social foundations. And that doesn’t as such banish forever the realm of markets (nor is this made an absolute contradiction to planning). The point here is that socialism/market economics can evolve together in tandem rather than be absolute opposites each given a stage of history…
Such a system could also interact with both an international and with an external capitalist outstanding order.
It would simply finish the question of economic rights and provide a robust package of social givens (education, jobs, housing, …) and this would be a legal/constitutional situation where each individual shares in the Commons.
With time the factor of planning is likely to develop but the seeming contradiction of market communism would find itself in fact a very flexible and dynamic duo/triad. It is important to see that economies are run both top/down and bottom/up and that the kind of economic domination of bolahevik one party rule over all economic decisions would be a thing of the past…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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