More and more it seems to me that a full endorsement of the macro model for the left is in order, save only that it is an uphill struggle dealing with stalled legacy thought systems on the marxist left. Somehow the marxist left got shunted into a form of reductionist scientism, which couldn’t handle modernity’s complexity, nor even correct debrief religious traditions.
The question of history is far more complex than the question of economic systems in succession. In general the evidence of history is clear: something in the category of ‘devolopmental evolution’ operate behind the scenes helping to drive the onward progression of civilizations. The ‘civilizations’ are not the point: it is a series of transitions generating new epochs that are the real dynamical entity. Civilizations are too diffuse to show a dynamic, contrary to the views of the muddle Toynbee and Spengler.
A view of ‘eonic effect’ can help to put modernity, and the left, in context and this can relieve analysis from economic obsession and value-free sociology. The ‘eonic model’ is in a way a successor to the attempt by Hegel to resolve Kant’s Challenge and does so in a far more empirical fashion without the mystifications of ‘spirit’ or anything else.
The socialist left needs a robust historicism that can deal with values, the emergence of freedom, and the place of free agents in the realization of history. This in the context of a complex and elusive design of driven evolution/development that creates a potential that man himself must realize. That is the key point with the debate over democracy, liberalism, and communism/socialism. They are all attempts at the same thing: what Kant called the ‘perfect civil constitution’, and our model shows how this process is operating in the case of modernity. The implication is that we must realize a truer democracy and this must be prefaced with communist axioms on the grounds we deduce from analysis that a fair system of equals can only emerge in a shared culture of resources placed in a Commons. The ‘private property’ of the capitalists is really an aspect of what Marx called ‘primitive accumulation’ and the point is obvious, or should be, that, say, the resource of carbon petroleum has been expropriated by ‘capital’ as a form of plunder of universal ownership.
The value of the eonic model is the way it requires a careful analysis of historical facts, and elusive interpretations between facts and value of both the realized past and the realizable future.
It founds ideas of the ‘evolution/emergence’ of freedom very easily and subjects the idea of deterministic history to a full critique.
The left has been left behind in the muddle of economic analysis and a new and nimbler form of historical analysis is needed to create a new communist left beyond the shipwreck of marxism…