The challenge to ‘historical materialism’ in LFM is a strong suggestion to the left to do what the current academic/scientific establishment is unable to do: step out of scientism, and its spinoffs, Darwinism, reductionist neuroscience, etc….
Everything about the emergence of ‘marxism’ suggests that it should be living in a larger domain of discourse than nineteenth century positivism, which overtook Marx and Engels in the decades after 1848. The connection to Hegel is a part of that reminder, and also a warning, that Hegel in isolation is too confusing: the whole of German classical philosophy should be the background. In any case, the twin bad sciences, of Darwinism, and neo-classical economics require a careful ideological debriefing, but somehow marxists can get untangled from the classical assumptions of Marx, deal with the confusing illusions of marginalist economics, let alone the debriefing of the horrendously subtle (and deceptive) theorems of Arrow-Debreu, etc, and can’t seem to recover Marx’s skepticism about Darwinism.
Meanwhile, the ‘end of history’ meme needs a clear debriefing, and the Introduction goes into that to some extent.
I think that we are out of time for theory, however, and need to consider the practical path to some form of postcapitalism. That idea, and its cousin, the idea of communism, have been refuted, demolished, buried so many times that people get an eye tick just trying to think about them. The answer to all the critics is simple: what if we had no choice except postcapitalism. All those profound critiques are beside the point….
LFM: Introduction….free markets and the genocide against future generations
http://last-and-first-men.com/LFMfinal_2014_introduction.pdf: The Introduction to LFM, nearing final draft, still a bit rough, but readable enough.