In terms of our historical model we can more rightly claim that ‘communism’ is a truer end of history than capitalism for the simple reason that capitalism is an ad hoc set of inventions with no final status as elements of natural law. We ‘blunder’ into a set of conditions of our own creation that end up subjecting us to forms of domination. These elements are not evolutionary so much as self-evolution, and ‘hoist on our own petard’ would be a fairly obvious designation.
Note that in terms of our eonic effect ‘evolution’, that is, the ‘eonic evolution of civilization, transcends economic factors and is visible in the ‘macrosequence’. In terms of our model ‘evolution’ then applies, to the extent we can grasp such a massive complexity, to the statistical aggregate of ‘eonic emergent factors’ or innovations that show macro correlation. This in our accounts usually refers to the constellation of events that emerge in the period of transitions.
Now here’s the kicker: there is no fully consistent version of this outcome: counterpoint entities stand in constellation. And here we see that while capitalism is a rough innovation of modernity, despite its long history outside of the eonic sequence, it is almost an afterthought. The center of gravity of the modern transition was not really capitalist and had many elements or versions, e.g. mercantilism. It is a mistake to consider the rise of capitalism some kind of overriding modernist entity. The reality is that is emerges beyond the control of the macro sequence. Certain philosophic elements emerge, e.g.Adam Smith, but his work is almost a drop in the bucket compared to the complexity of the modern transition. But such elemental sideshows can rapidly overtake the whole system. It is simply a fiction of economic propaganda to say that the rise of capitalism is a new epoch of history. In fact it is a hack based on various financial and technological innovations none of which are elements of any kind of historical inevitability. One of the traps of analysis was to consider that capitalism was a fixed entity when in reality it was always a ‘cogent farce’ in motion, an experiment in self-interest. It arose as set of fictions based on ‘capital’ whose potency gave a set of predators exploiting primitive accumulation a the power to control governments, and social ideology. That is not a stage of history. It is a set of aberrations that had developmental aspects nonetheless. The question of markets was always and obviously to many a distortion of an as yet uninvented harmonization of the innovations in question. In a way Marx/Engels well understood this but they tended to be mesmerized by the glamor of capitalist as some kind of inexorable process when it fact it was a kind of near entropic ‘down hill’ slide via the manner of self-interest. The obvious conclusion is that capitalism and socialism emerge together as a tandem or ‘dialectical’ (beware that term) pair that emerge from macro evolution into micro evolution (in our special sense). That is, ‘evolution’ in our sense is the aggregate emergentism of the properties of modernity emergent in the early modern. These are realized in the self-evolution of men who have gone through a phase of this evolution. And we see thus that the economic factor was open to immediate distortion as it began to swamp the entire field of modern innovation.
This can be a disorienting redefinitiion of ‘evolution’ but it is actually a legitimate approach and far superior given the evidence of the macro effect…