The model of World History and the Eonic Effect gives a good snapshot of world history in the form of a simple/hard conjecture about a new form of dynamical argument. But that argument is never allowed to interfere with the dynamic by default using simple periodization. the resulting pattern of transitions and the system overall is far too complex for any kind of known theory, one reason being the factor of free agency. The model is designed to serve a contrast of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ related to the nature of action inside or outside the key transition intervals. This distinction might help the left realize why its activist projects have lost steam: the revolutions of the early modern show a factor (unknown, but by definition) of system action that is suddenly absent after the conclusion of the transitional era. viz. after the French Revolution, but with a momentum up to the 1848, maybe even 1917 revolutions. The point here is that a key component of modern revolution suddenly voids out and leaves leftists with the need to consciously construct the steps of revolution. That goes a long way toward explaining why projected leftist actions often produce very little. The solution is to not count on early modern momentum (leftists would hardly think they do!) and to consider with all due deliberation the steps to a mechanics of social change/revolution. The term ‘revolution’ needs reinvention from scratch.
http://www.amazon.com/Full-Spectrum-Dominance-Totalitarian-Democracy/dp/398132630X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433955423&sr=1-1&keywords=engdahl+william: Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
This book, mentioned yesterday, has a lot of interesting information about the artificial construction of (velvet) pseudo-‘revolutions’ by the CIA (plus figures like NED and Soros foundation in background). But they do illustrate how (if you have tons of cash to burn) the steps to ‘revolution’ without ‘system action’ in my sense can be faked.
The left needs to break a real revolution down into the components and consider their implementation as a radical project with a new idea of ‘revolution’ that operates on its own logic and momentum with or without the same dynamics of the typical revolutions of the early modern. If these can be imitated, all well and good, but the reconstruction if their interior logic might result in something effective that looked a little different.