History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Culture has moved beyond mindsets such as historical materialism…marxists have made a complete mess of their opportunity and the result is, ‘you’re fired’…

April 16th, 2018 · No Comments

It can seem divisive to critique historical materialism but our take on this is that you can pursue histomat all you want but at this point a communist movement needs a new approach.
Look at our efforts to decipher new age confusion over the last few days. Reductionist psychology and western science can’t really resolve the confusions of religion and it can’t really resolve its own confusion through suppression, denial, and materialist fiat. What are you going to do with new agers? Put them in concentration camps? But the left has a tool here, dialectic (not the usual junk from upside down hegel): the resolution is a real ‘dialectic’, that is an openness to contradictions and ambiguities and a larger field of concepts. Let me note that christian theocracy could be even worse here but the point is merely that historical materialism contracted from a larger dialectic and became a dogmatic ‘religion’ or leftist cult. This is not really mine opinion: that marxist is fading is not up to me: I could write ten kindle books on historical materialism and make a name for myself on the left instead of trying to beat marxist deadbeats over the head.
If the problems are too complex, and they probably are, then, at least, we can stand back from reductionist dogmatism and aim for a communist culture that is a search, not a church, an exploration, not a mess of marx pottage condemned to stalinist fiat as a new pope.
Marxists have made a complete mess of their opportunity and the result is, ‘you’re fired’…the problems are so complex that they may be insoluble: we need a strategy of dialectical neutrality, perhaps…
In a real sense then our critique of historical materialism spring from the reality that marxism is ceasing to be an option. We need to recast the whole subject and in the process deal with the fact that culture is changing and the new age movement shows one way, just one of a multiplicity, that culture is changing and eluding the kind of analysis that seemed obvious in an era way before, say, quantum mechanics, and the whole shebang of cultural transformation/technological innovation, and the huge attempt to debrief the religions of antiquity without reductionist scientism…if marxists repent and start to innovate they might well discover the bits and pieces of marxist fragments popping out of the woodwork over again.
Design in history…histomat versus the eonic perspective…
February 28th, 2018 ·

Our previous post on the issue of design in history suggests that the marxist ‘design’ argument is too limited, and fallacious.
We have recommended a version of the eonic model as a replacement.

This can be a minimalist version that is simply a chronicle of world history, but one that points to the definite if ambiguous evidence of rapid transitions.
This view simply catalogs the epochs visible: transitions and their in betweens or medieval periods: three visible since Egypt/Sumer

This can be taken empirically, with modernity as the hypothesized onset of a new epoch by whatever dynamic, a no-brainer actually.
In this context the study of economic history (next to technological history) makes better sense than the rigid framework of feudalism, capitalism, communism.

One aspect of historical design is the emergence of democracy, and the modern version is especially compelling. But the early socialists and then Marx/Engels pointed to the cooptation of democracy by capitalism and suggested democracy required both political and economic equality, another no-brainer after all this debate over ‘isms’.

The eonic version of marxist historicism is thus a simple, practical empirical model that can stage the issue of communism as an aspect of democratic realization and ecological economics.

The current brand of marxism claims that communism will inexorably succeed capitalism. But that won’t happen unless free agents decide to create a communist future. They can do this based on axioms of fairness, equality, and economic sanity, rather than with a clumsy and incorrect version of economic epochs.
But this then requires the assumption that men make themselves and can create a communist future.
Our models and manifestos suggest a social democratic blueprint done right: the equivocation over social democracy and/or ‘stalinist’ planning wrecked the old international. A much simpler approach using our eonic model can, stripped of jargon, provide a ‘clear water’ brand of non-theory and strong praxis…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment