One of the issues that stand in challenge to the macro model of WHEE is that of ‘point of view’. But the model is slightly different from a standard perspective of science. If a system is objectively causal it erases all value issues.
But in an historical model this won’t work: history is chock full of values, and values ’cause’ (?), if not causal, then determinate outcomes of some kind. ::the values assigned by a movie review cause changes in number of viewers, etc…
In terms of ideology the model seems open to bias, e.g. bias in favor of democracy, say. But is this a problem: history itself shows a clear set of ‘propulsions’ toward a number of value outcomes.
The link above is the last remnant of the study in earlier editions of WHEE of the so-called ‘discrete freedom sequence’: the recurrence of democracy in repeated transitions, just before the divide as system action shifts to free action. That means, you can induce democracy, but it decrease freedom to do so. But if you don’t induce it, primitive hominids like homo sapiens will drift away from the suggested system.
This property can’t be coincidence and is almost spooky.
But a deeper study of the model in WHEE shows both this ‘system’s value bias’ toward democracy, the property sensed by Hegel and discussed by Fukuyama, but a deep level where the critique of democracy as fake outcome of ‘bourgeois’ revolution. The answer is simple, even under conditions of macro induction the result is the kind of flawed version of a liberal system that marxist rightly criticize. If we look closely, the first macro resolution is the religious ‘communism’ of Munzer.
The point here is that our macro system seems to show recurrent stagings of attempt to solve the ‘democracy’ problems, first via capitalism, and then the predicted movement toward a postcapitalist form of democracy, communism.