History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

R48G: going cold turkey off histomat…

September 20th, 2017 · No Comments


Looking backwards we have to wonder if Marx didn’t browbeat the left into his theories.

Whatever the case, the hold of the marxist canon on its adherents is tenacious. But it has come to be a burden. And the actual format of the core as historical materialism is a liability, something marxists can’t seem to grasp. And the theory is too ambitious, you can’t just theorize a universal history, and has been lambasted by multiple critics. The core marxist cadre is a cult and its members never read the critics and repeat the same formulas over and over again. Noone seems to realize that you can’t promote a subject with a theory that your enemies control via their ‘refutations’. They themselves get a lot wrong, but the overall result is not appealing to the general public, also given the evidence of clear failure of the second and other internationals and/or bolshevism. Throw it the clever heist of Fukuyama and the seeming success of markets (ha!) and the left simply idles in neutral.

But one thing is consensual, and that is democracy. So the solution to creating a post or neo marxism (first step drop the term marxism, asap) that proposes a true democracy based on the claim, not that communism is historically a new epoch after …feudalism/capitalism, that in the name of equality and fairness the resources of a planetary system must be shared in a Commons, and that means that we have to bring communism to democracy, and vice versa. We must reclaim the idea from both bolsheviks and from marxists, the latter picking up the idea from french sources. The point being that a marxist monopoly is stalling the left at this point. That done, we can review the whole subject beyond theory and note the often cogent formulations on questions such as class struggle, ideology and theory, economic issues, etc…To say that class struggle is an aspect of the history of civilization is quite cogent, to say that class struggle is a mechanism of historical development as a driver of history suddenly bites off more than it can chew: theory again…and in that form it is not really true. Don’t ask your public and critics to accept an incorrect theory. Drop theories and point to class struggles as empirical histories. You can, btw, tear the eonic model to pieces but the eonic effect remains an empirical given…

And the issue of a communist future which is ambiguously evolutionary/revolutionary is not another theory but a judgment of values by free agents attempting to realize the democratic revolution of modernity. These free agents are those who propose the idea of freedom and this has a good defender in the philosopher Kant taken if small doses as with his idea of the republic of ends. We might evade theories and end in metaphysics, but Kant shows a way there.

The idea of communism was botched but it should be as appealing as the idea of democracy but needs a debriefing of the illusions of democracy that proposed by the bourgeoisie. Here sundry fragments of the marxist canon pop out of the woodwork as relevant, too often however triggering the same old crud of bad theory and cadre boilerplate.

Instead of a theory of history we have suggest a look at the eonic effect, but in a stylized form:

World history shows a progression of epochs, the first from Egypt/Sumer on, the second starting with the Axial Age, and the third the onset of modernity. That’s it: we can study this structure in the plain vanilla manner of three chapters of a book of history. In the background the eonic model so-called can be considered, optionally, perhaps as a set of questions. For example, is history teleological? We say no. Or else we consider the answer yes (the eonic model hints at a yes). We are in another kantian antinomial situation, perhaps.
We can simply be wary of the question with an intelligent (dialectical) approach reasoning on the evidence. (The dialectic is not the marxist brand, and simply means a ‘debate, yes, no’).
Our three epochs show the development of civilization and this is more than economics. It is culture, religion, philosophy, politics, science, and aesthetics in the main with economics/economy as a subprocess. We can study the actual histories of the economies in place in various civilizations and we might notice that ‘capitalism’ was gestating from the beginning. Its crystalization in the modern epoch is real enough but misleading. It does not characterize the epoch of modernity necessarily. This point has been in a way confused by all parties, including marxists who lost their own argument by not seeing that capitalism is just an hoc set of constructs that have a libertarian twist about free markets. Fair enough, but no theory of this has proven truly viable from Adam Smith to the neo-classical theorists. Mathematical economics is not a reals science and in a mirror image of marxist confusions we are not required to accept as science the muddle of math economists have proposed to us. There is no reason based on these theories to take markets as rocket science.
We must experiment with different combinations to see what happens. The experiment with capitalism threatens to destroy a planet so we may have to scratch that off the list. The bolshevik approaches hardly merit the term communism which has to be melted down and done again from scratch. But it logically follow in some ‘neo’-communist sense as the antithesis of capitalism, very roughly. We can see that we have two failures, so-called bolshevik communism, and capitalism. So we might be about the business (dialectic) of finding a judicious hybrid faithful to communist axioms, e.g our democratic market neo-communism, but that is just a sketch of a gedanken experiment. But the point is that ‘markets’ are both an ancient and a modern mechanism/invention. We may not have to abolish them to create a communism. Whatever the case we need to remain empirical and constructivist and the keynote is to create a democratic outcome.

The eonic model can be taken like the Cheshire Cat, but the eonic effect, as a saga of epochs taken neat, or three chapters in a book (it is probable that there are seven such epochs going back to the Neolithic, but we need not conclude that), with chapter three just getting underway.
If we give up theories the result be another theory of history and here the eonic effect and its model will, prior to Cheshire vanishing, demolish all of them with its antinomial questions.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment