History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: revolutionary musings/abstractions? and a Kantian perspective….

May 6th, 2017 · No Comments

We have cited an older post from this spring on the subject of views of history and ‘Kant’s challenge’ to find the logic or pattern of history.
The question of revolution lurks in the background of all our discussions irregardless of our stance as to its efficacy beyond abstraction.

Let us note that in a situation where many activists cannot endorse revolutionary action, not surprising perhaps, our idea of ‘virtual revolution’ is a useful reminder that whatever the practicality or realistic hope for revolutionary change the fragmented issue activism of too many distracts from attempting to integrate a full platform of issues, projects, and aspirations in the fields of economy, politics, and culture. Prominent here must be the issue of climate and ecology and the ongoing disaster of global warming.
This virtual revolution can help us to confront the system as is in a realistic manner, however seemingly unrealistic the prospects for ‘over the barricades’ civil tumult. The point here is that dealing in abstractions of comprehensive social change isn’t totally fruitless: ideas proclaimed can and will induce change, if only to induce chattering teeth in elites who in fact know only too well how corrupt the current american system really is. So, at the least, abstractions can be the first budge toward moving the giant rock.

And it is necessary to reinvent political activism, as we have suggested here many times. We might reiterate our postmarxist perspective by citing the figure of Kant and his idea of history proceeding toward a ‘perfect civil constitution’. The rise of modern politics suddenly remorphed into democratic, then socialist, revolution, reflects this obvious question that has degenerated into the post-hegelian nonsense about the ‘end of history’. Modernity shows a kantian progression toward a ‘perfect civil constitution’, but obviously the result is far short of perfection! So we have made progress but the process is still underway. This is a far more intuitive version of the question that isn’t muddled by the sophistry of the trick play called the ‘end of history’.
The kantian perspective can be useful to think in practical terms about the need to not get stalled in the realization of constitutional evolution. And we learn the lessons given by the early socilaists and then marxists that the democracy breakthrough was challenged from the start by the ambiguity over the idea of freedom and its early libertarian/capitalist corruptions. In a way Kant is one of the sources here despite his stolid early liberalism and his work spawned a parallel version of socialism based on a core notion of the ‘republic of ends’, a system that respected the rights of all men taken equally in a system of politics.
Capitalism assisted in one way and denied in another the trend toward equality and now we see a system out of control as a neo-totalitarian capitalist/oligarchic pseudo-democracy controlled by capital. The grounds for a new transformation/progression toward an improved ‘civil constitution’ is screamingly obvious. But here the bolshevik corruptions of such tenets has alienated the general public from what otherwise is its insistence now on democracy. That insistence must inform the degenerated version of marxism we see in the Russian revolution. We need to recast the whole subject and this requires deriving a new politics based on equality, or equalization, and ideas of freedom that cannot be sacrificed to economic mythology such as the fictions of free markets.
We rapidly produce a recursion of the early logic of the socialists who deduced the clear logic of ‘communism’ from the principle of fairness, as the status of social production reverts to a commons. This need not forgo the question of market which might thrive as will under the aegis of the Commons.
The point here is that the Kantian perspective is a constitutional praxis, and completely intuitive, where the marxist canon has too ambitiously attempt to create a science of economic developmental systems. Such theories are an obstacle now because they have been repeatedly challenged, and produce obstinate opposition in a majority of the public. And they aren’t really scientific as claimed. Opponents can make short work of such theories and the result if the stalemate we see now.

an older post:

R48G: progress toward a perfect civil constitution…

March 21st, 2017 ·

The issue of Kant and history…

From our developing blogbook…

the basic intent is to simplify the confusion created by marxism and jumpstart a new and practical approach using elements of the marxist legacy taken in reserve.
Marxist historical theory doesn’t work and has been critiqued many times. It is a non-telelogical crypto-teleological theory about a set of entities far too complex for such a simplified analysis. The danger is that while waiting for the next stage after capitalism we will remain passive until the capitalist era exhausts its potential: the latter will never happen. We will burn out the planet before we exhaust all the useless combinations of capitalism.
We are betrayed by theory here in the puzzle of marx’s complex deliberations and overly complex analysis. And that includes the confusions over the labor theory of value, and the latter makes much better sense if you stop trying to produce a theory. Much of marx’s analysis remains of great interest, viz. analyses of class struggle but overall it belongs to the era of positivism (still quite current) and its ‘scientism’. We need to pay our dues to the era of feuerbach in which marx and engels worked and adopt a secular perspective but there are many ways to do that and we need to consider the limits of the materialism of the period which gestated socialist thought. Marx’s attempt to create a science confused the issue and the result was never really a science. We see the second international proceed down the garden path of a ‘science’ that should have been something less ambitious and focused on the practical.
Instead of attempts to rationalize ‘stages of production’ theory in the fashion of marx we could do better by considering a classic essay on history written by kant: there is the issue of teleology is taken explicitly, but the core of the piece is to ask a question about history and refer the question to the future. The analysis of the eonic effect attempts to point to the probable solution to kant’s question which also asks for a demonstration of the passage to a perfect civil constitution.
There is a key to a new praxis: can we detect the solution to the riddle of civil ‘evolution’? Indeed we can and the eonic effect (in earlier versions with its ‘discrete freedom sequence’) shows just this. So, instead of a succession of systems in deterministic directionality we have the prospect of moving toward replacing capitalist democracy with renewed progress toward a perfect civil constitution. The current madness is hardly perfection! This is the task of free agents nor mechanical systems or economic structures.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment