The previous post zeroes in on the ‘deviations’ of Zizek, but what of the material proposed here and in Last and First Men with its seeming deviations from the marxist canon?
It is something entirely different and has no connection with the generation of postmodern idiocy with its confusing strains of Nietzsche/Heidegger, etc… The study of the ‘macro effect’ in WHEE at history and evolution.com is so massively grounded it is almost an oak tree of solidity: it is a balance of the core ‘sample’ of massively parallel/sequential civilizational streams: 1.the Neolithic, 2. Egypt, Sumer…3. the massive Axial spectrum: Greece, ‘Israel’, Persia, India, and China and then the early modern transition, so-called. It can deal with all periods but puts an emphasis on the ‘macro’ intervals of the model (as above) because these are when history is at its most creative, freshest…The emergent phase of marxism is par for the course in this framework, and yet our model is probably superior for reasons related to the above: the model balances all the elements that generated modernity: the Reformation, the Scientific Revolution, the emergence of freedom/liberalism/democratic revolution up to and including the emergent socialism/communism in the same canon (communism in the Reformation actually precedes bourgeois liberalism). But it can easily carry the issues of class, economic critique, revolution, and class warfare in this universe.
If anything marxism shows its temporal limits in its conditioning by the onset of nineteenth century positivism and scientism, the key limitation of marxist thought, along with its obsessive ‘materialism’ mixed with an extravagant dialectic as a descendant of the now hated Hegelianism. No matter, the model absorbs these counterpoints and emerges with the central issues intact. This materialist slant is actually transcended in the ‘macro model’ because that model as noted above contains a fretted instrument compromising a large ‘dialectic’ or spectrum. For example it easily straddles materialism/idealism and can play both tunes.
But apart from this the model embraces the issues of capitalist critique, class analysis, economic ideology, and corrupted theory, and it easily rescues hapless youth from the realm of Nietzsche siren call, along with the confusing Heidegger and postmodernism, by exposing those as corruptions of the early modern. Nietzsche is especially confusing and the source of many muddled thinkers in the twentieth century. The model of the macro effect clearly shows what is going wrong there because its emphasis is more primordial and founded in Nietzsche’s sources in German Classical Philosophy, starting with Kant.
We have suggested that this model would make a good superset for marxists to study a broader set of perspectives in the whole of the early modern as one instrument, with marxism as a descendant in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, French Revolution, and capitalism as a new economic construct/ideology. That would allow for communication with a far larger audience and not hamstring discussion of socialism/communism with nineteenth century Iron Cage mentalities.
This larger view could help to see the place of revolution, industrial globalization, and communism in a larger context, and help to foresee the larger civilizational mindsets a future postcapitalism will need to reckon with.
In the final analysis this larger perspective can both embrace and transcend ‘materialism’, it is not the key issue (after all one of the core ‘spiritual’ psychologies of antiquity was the ‘materialist’ Samkhya). It might help however to consider the larger discourse of the whole of modernity. The marxist left doesn’t have to jacknife against modernity as some kind of bourgeois aberration. The revolution beyond capitalism, if it comes will be a version of modernity that has different kind of economics than the capitalist. That’s it. The rest has to jump in the lifeboat and carry its early modern breakthroughs to a new future.