History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The macro model as a way to debrief the failure of historical materialism

March 8th, 2013 · No Comments


I tried to jolt the left here on the subject of marxism. Twenty years have been lost since 1989, and nothing new has appeared. It is all the same die-hard crypto-Stalisnist marxist rehash. But Marx’s work is grossly overrated. In the period of the 1840’s Marx’s brilliance impressed many, including Engels, and the birth of an idea of a project that became marxism was born. But the expectation seems to have defeated the result, a statement that should exempt the practical work that created the Second Internationale. But the theory behind this, historical materialism, dialectics, and the theories of value are all failures. A first sign of a problem was the endless delay factor in Marx’s procrastination. Engels’ growing alarm ended with his attempting to complete the life work that Marx was unable to finish. One reason was the foundations of historical materialism were flawed, and, as Schopenhaeur might have warned, anyone who succumbs to the mystique of the dialectic is going to end a mushbrain Hegelian cultist, open or disguised. Why not leave the whole thing behind?

Sit down and study the macro model shown in World History and the Eonic Effect or Descent of Man Revisited: this approach, which is taboo in braindead academic/Darwinian circles, is actually light years beyond Marx’s sterile historical theory. The so-called ‘macro model’ is blessedly not another ‘theory’, but an outline of history. The interpretation may be flawed, but behind it that empiricism remains. You can see the dynamics of emerging civilization in an evolutionary context as a clear pattern of the simplest kind of epochal succession. No grand theory is needed, although the macro model provides a ‘model’ (not a theory), which can be set aside to return to the basic outline. With that outline you can study the various forms of economic organization, and the emergence of market capitalism. The point here is that we don’t have to analyze economics theoretically. The whole effort has been a failure, one so complicated by bullshit mathematics that noone can manage perspective on the monstrosities of theory, left and right.
The point is that capitalism is not a set of laws of history, but, as Marx’s thinking originally understood, early on, before 1848, a conspiracy of capitalists to control their economic organization, labor, and finance. It is a human creation, and has no inherent legitimation. It can be changed at will. That is all that is needed. The immense effort in Capital represents an effort that attempted too much, started to become an unmanageable research project, and was finally abandoned. I am often puzzled by the devotion to this mystical corpus. The whole thing should have been superceded decades ago.

So that’s the problem in part: the leftist cult of Marx is a bunch of Stalinist Hegelian mushbrains.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment