History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Will Marx groupies/dummies please shut up and reexamine their theories? DMNC instead of a fixed progression of ‘stages’.

June 11th, 2017 · No Comments

We made our point about marxism yesterday also, and in many posts from this blog under the R48G tag: http://darwiniana.com/?s=R48G+revolution.

The idea that we must conform to marxist theory of the stages of production is mostly a pile of rubbish. Those stages of production imply a transition from feudalism to capitalism to communism and that theory is clearly not a rigorous scientific formulation. What was feudalism? Variants of feudalism have existed from the time of the Neolithic in the midst of all sorts of other social formats but the overall form has never been a fixed or dominant phase of history. It is useful to compare feudalism with both the Hindu system of caste and its probable source in the Indo-European ‘invasion’ or entry in whatever form into India. The Occidental medievalism (buttressed with Christianity) of castes we have to suspect was influenced by the Indic brand, with a primordial strain of one and the same Aryan warrior mythology. Whatever the case there is no reason we should consider any of that a stage of history.
A better formulation is to consider the continuous stream of history in many complex forms. To that we can bring our analysis of epochs to see that ‘modernity’ is not a successor to feudalism but is a new era in that history and that its overall form is not inherently capitalist (the early modern was often mercantilist). Capitalism arose as a complex of industrial/technological and financial instruments and was significantly challenged from that start by the very people who turned it into a fetishized stage of history.

Instead it should have been shaped from the start by a constructive set of challenges that created a new form of economic modernism, whether socialist, communist or a hybrid such as our DMNC. Communism is a foundational set of axioms about private property and derivable not by economic theories but by the deduction of equality and fairness and the question of ‘primitive accumulation’. There is no clear demarcation of economic stages and we should have had a better theory of market socialism in its various brands. We don’t even need that can as with DMNC annex a series of parallel sectors, e.g. a planned economy, a market economy without private property but held in a Commons. Capitalists often challenged marxism because it bolshevik version was so confused and muddled that it couldn’t produce an efficient economy. In our formulation we actually allow a sector of markets in a larger communism, the latter being a constitutional framework, not a stage of history. We can in successive transformations or remorphings transform a liberal democracy into a variant liberal communism, proof that the stages of production and/or the ‘end of history’ arguments are invalid analyses…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment