History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Has the modern revolutionary tide spent itself?

April 25th, 2018 · No Comments

We are left to wonder if the modern revolutionary tide has spent itself and why the leftist canons are stuck in the marxist vein, a great resource but one that needs a critical upgrade. If we consider the eonic model we get a suggestion that the mode of revolution is a modern innovation in the period of eonic transition and that it is therefore a permanent addition to human political action. But….
In the eonic model the emergence of the remarkable marx/engels duo occurs just at the ‘divide’ point and this suggests they appear just at the point where system action is turning into ‘free action’. That’s a bit artificial but the model’s suggestion shows us at once the nature of our problem: free agents can’t replicate the early modern which itself seems to be spastic in its revolutionary tide.
We are suspicious, as were marx/engels, that the great drama of democratic revolution was flawed from the start in the wake of the english civil war which shows many signs of competing versions, including proto-communism. The strategy of marx/engels was the right one, but it suffered from what seems now like a flawed model of history: the stages of production theory which proposes a series of epochs…feudalism, to capitalism, to communism. But that analysis is not really correct. The scheme is really a brilliant piece of propaganda, but its logic seems flawed now. Feudalism isn’t really a stage of history. Marx really seems to have meant that modernity as capitalism replaced the medieval world. But then there is no theoretical claim left as to a successor, communism. The problem is easy to resolve, and marx/engels in the 1840’s fairly well saw the point: the early modern transition shows a dialectical tension of opposites, capitalism and communism being and it is not so much a case of one succeeding the other as of creating a ‘real democracy’, as the factions of the english civil war attempted until they lost their game in the restoration and the onset of parliamentary oligarchy: democracy must have the elements of communism to become something more than the definition as ‘electoral democracy’ which has now usurped the meaning of the term. But a far more realistic reification of what is essentially the rousseauan versions of the ‘general’ will requires something more robust that simple electoral democracy, not so brutally corrupted by capitalist domination. We need to consider then the path to successor to capitalism that is more nuanced than the grand passage between epochs: our epoch is modernity and it requires a truly stable democratic based on a communist challenge to pure capitalism…the mysterious hybrid is the last revolution and while it seems improbable we have to wonder if it is any more improbable than any of the others. In fact, the russian revolution was improbable but it lost its opportunity in a flawed analysis of what was required: stages of production theory again…We look back in sadness at the flawed reasoning of the early leninist period and we can see that the clever lenin sensed the problem in the NEP period, but soon the rigid definitional communism took hold and it struck noone that a stalinist version was by definition not communism at all, because it wasn’t democratic…
But in a curious way marx/engels were both right and wrong: for all intents and purposes the era of capitalist domination is confronting its own demise: we should be careful therefore to find the dialectical balance of capitalism and communism, that is, a communism with a robust economy, perhaps even a market logic in a planned context, and a democratic base. The moment of chaos is coming: we must be ready and not repeat the bolshevik fiasco…

The revolution discussions from yesterday:

subtract the eonic data from world history and what do you have…?? a hunter gatherer…//A complete postmarxist systematics that isn’t a system

Was the evolution of homo sapiens like a software upgrade?

A complete postmarxist systematics that isn’t a system

You’ve got mail….Klein and ‘our revolution’….(consider sending you money to the R48G)

“Revolution in a warming world’ and our (r)evolutionary post-leninist DMNC

R48G: the revolutionary impulse and modernity/antimodernity
March 13th, 2017 ·
One of the ironies of the analysis of the antimodernists and their calls for some kind of ‘new age’ epoch (the aquarian age meme was one such piece of nonsense) is that modern revolutionary dynamism itself is both modern and antimodern at the same time:

the revolutionary impulse (nothing like the modern ‘revolution’ really existed in earlier eras, but consider the ancient greek city states, perhaps) has tended to promote the ‘modern’ against the ‘medieval’ but it soon enough became clear that a set of secondary ‘revolutions’ would be needed to complete modernity. (A related example is the chaotic legacy of, say, the english reformation between henry/8, the english civil war and its restoration, a spectacle of not being able to get it right). The classic case is the nineteenth century left with its canonical codification by mars/engels: the idea of the ‘last revolution’ has the implication that a postcapitalist era will emerge in reaction to the contraction of modernity in the downshifted version of capitalist economic organization.
We have suggested a more generalized version of such a revolution as a ‘floating fourth turning point’ (referring to the ‘eonic effect’). i.e. some kind of economic revolution balanced with a full platform of cultural aspects that can forestall revolutionary oversimplification. The ‘revolution’ of modernity was itself such a transformation, a warning of the complexity of the task of postcapitalist social reorganization.

It is worth studying the case of the greek enlightenment in the axial age and its related roman degenerations. By analog to attempts to castigate modernity we might charge greece with roman sins: obviously that doesn’t work. The obvious point was for rome to have realized the greek enlightenment. In the same fashion we must be wary of blaming the early modern for the deviations and degenerations of those who come later. The whole point is to realize modernity not to abolish it. But that is not an easy task given the tremendous complexity of the early modern.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment