- 30 May 2015 04:19
#14562149
Warning: I know this is one of my first threads and I'm unsure of my posting ability, but I hope that this would be a good opening post. If it isn't, then just assume that my writing ability has rusted due to not having written anything in a long while.
Firstly, I wouldn't really call this to be my own "new" ideology, like what so many threads over here do. Instead, this is just supposed to be a discussion on the continuity of a radical republican line of though in the Western world from the time of Rome onwards and the possible ways to carry on the torch into the modern, industrial age. At first, I saw libertarian socialism as the possible germ of this continuation, albeit with flaws inherited from the modern "Left" that are to be removed. However, it was increasingly apparent that these flaws are intrinsic within the modern "Left", and mere reform within the "Left" is impossible. Instead, a revolution must be done against the modern "Left".
Now, what are those flaws I keep mentioning? They are the flaws of cosmopolitanism, identity politics, and lack of focus on the real revolutionary struggle. Communism seems to have devolved into empty dreams of a planned or gift economy in a globalized and cosmopolitan world of "global citizens". As if the concept of citizenship doesn't imply a sense of nationality! From my experiences at the May Day protests in Detroit, the communist doesn't give a real damn about the working class taking over society aside from a thin veneer. And before the mention of "Workers of the World, Unite!" comes into mind, why doesn't the modern far-left activist look at him or herself when it comes to dividing the working class? Doesn't identity politics divide the working class even more than what they accuse nationalism of? To the modern Communist, the working class can be divided in white and black, men and women, and straight and gay along with a variety of other forms of identity that are created on the fly. Yet, damn the working class for having a national identity instead of being good "global citizens" who enjoy the cosmopolitan culture of the often non-working-class communists. The hypocrisy is downright baffling when they even condemn the revolutions of the past, except the Russian Revolution, to the point of siding with the counter-revolutionaries. The modern communist would rather be a Tory than a Patriot. In this sense, the modern communist isn't even a revolutionary but merely is instead a reformist who is an unwitting lackey of the global capitalist system.
So, Communism is dead and has devolved into something completely different from what it initially was in it's long devolution. But, history can not be paused. There needs to be a revolutionary ideology that would arise from the ashes of communism.
Well, we should look to the ideas that had worked for the revolutionary movement when it was at its strongest. Firstly, the core of these ideas would be a "Republican Liberty" which is well summarized here. It is quite easy to draw the conclusion of wage labor being unjust from this basic premise. Secondly, the revolutionary movement must be as radicalized politically as it is economically, taking the classical republican ideas to their logical conclusion. Direct democracy is the government of a society ruled by the working classes, in which I include any one who labors without employing the labor of others. And, it is the form of government that prevents one individual or group of people from seizing control of society. Of course, such a democracy must not be the baseless democracy often dreamed up, but instead a democracy based on an active and patriotic citizenry. The citizenry must be invested into the nation. The citizenry must be armed to fight for their liberty. Another consequence of this is that confederalism is a must in this system. This is where the idea of recallable, mandated delegates come into play and direct representation. Though, I would prefer if exact blueprints of forms of government be delayed for another discussion. Economically, a mixture of mutualism and syndicalism/guild socialism seems to be the most practical way to bring control of the means of production to the working class and thus prevent the dependent and authoritarian relationship between the capitalist class as masters and the proletarian class as dependents. And, a form of nationalism, mixed with regionalism and localism, based on common citizenship, culture, and territorial history within one's city/town/village, region, and nation would be a mobilizing force for the citizenry. Essentially, mixture of cultural, territorial, and civic nationalism into one entity along with regionalism and localism.
And, I see Cantonalism as the term closest to describing these sorts of ideas.
Firstly, I wouldn't really call this to be my own "new" ideology, like what so many threads over here do. Instead, this is just supposed to be a discussion on the continuity of a radical republican line of though in the Western world from the time of Rome onwards and the possible ways to carry on the torch into the modern, industrial age. At first, I saw libertarian socialism as the possible germ of this continuation, albeit with flaws inherited from the modern "Left" that are to be removed. However, it was increasingly apparent that these flaws are intrinsic within the modern "Left", and mere reform within the "Left" is impossible. Instead, a revolution must be done against the modern "Left".
Now, what are those flaws I keep mentioning? They are the flaws of cosmopolitanism, identity politics, and lack of focus on the real revolutionary struggle. Communism seems to have devolved into empty dreams of a planned or gift economy in a globalized and cosmopolitan world of "global citizens". As if the concept of citizenship doesn't imply a sense of nationality! From my experiences at the May Day protests in Detroit, the communist doesn't give a real damn about the working class taking over society aside from a thin veneer. And before the mention of "Workers of the World, Unite!" comes into mind, why doesn't the modern far-left activist look at him or herself when it comes to dividing the working class? Doesn't identity politics divide the working class even more than what they accuse nationalism of? To the modern Communist, the working class can be divided in white and black, men and women, and straight and gay along with a variety of other forms of identity that are created on the fly. Yet, damn the working class for having a national identity instead of being good "global citizens" who enjoy the cosmopolitan culture of the often non-working-class communists. The hypocrisy is downright baffling when they even condemn the revolutions of the past, except the Russian Revolution, to the point of siding with the counter-revolutionaries. The modern communist would rather be a Tory than a Patriot. In this sense, the modern communist isn't even a revolutionary but merely is instead a reformist who is an unwitting lackey of the global capitalist system.
So, Communism is dead and has devolved into something completely different from what it initially was in it's long devolution. But, history can not be paused. There needs to be a revolutionary ideology that would arise from the ashes of communism.
Well, we should look to the ideas that had worked for the revolutionary movement when it was at its strongest. Firstly, the core of these ideas would be a "Republican Liberty" which is well summarized here. It is quite easy to draw the conclusion of wage labor being unjust from this basic premise. Secondly, the revolutionary movement must be as radicalized politically as it is economically, taking the classical republican ideas to their logical conclusion. Direct democracy is the government of a society ruled by the working classes, in which I include any one who labors without employing the labor of others. And, it is the form of government that prevents one individual or group of people from seizing control of society. Of course, such a democracy must not be the baseless democracy often dreamed up, but instead a democracy based on an active and patriotic citizenry. The citizenry must be invested into the nation. The citizenry must be armed to fight for their liberty. Another consequence of this is that confederalism is a must in this system. This is where the idea of recallable, mandated delegates come into play and direct representation. Though, I would prefer if exact blueprints of forms of government be delayed for another discussion. Economically, a mixture of mutualism and syndicalism/guild socialism seems to be the most practical way to bring control of the means of production to the working class and thus prevent the dependent and authoritarian relationship between the capitalist class as masters and the proletarian class as dependents. And, a form of nationalism, mixed with regionalism and localism, based on common citizenship, culture, and territorial history within one's city/town/village, region, and nation would be a mobilizing force for the citizenry. Essentially, mixture of cultural, territorial, and civic nationalism into one entity along with regionalism and localism.
And, I see Cantonalism as the term closest to describing these sorts of ideas.