Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Social democracy reborn on the other side of the expropriation of private property?

August 9th, 2018 · No Comments

The stance of the marxist left can arguably be said to stand in the way of any fresh thinking on the issue of a passage to postcapitalism. An equal case can be made that thinking so has tended to animate social democratic compromises that fritter away the basic thrust of socialist/communist thinking.

In any other field failure at the level of bolshevism should demand the resignation of, not just leninists, but of marxists, ‘so to speak’. In fact, a basic cadre is hard to replace: born again ex-marxists are one way to go, brand new baseball caps, with fines/stays in zen monasteries for mouthing marxist boilerplate. But what should be easy is to replace the classic canon, without compromising the basic axioms of socialism/communism, and we can do without double terms here. The emphasis should be beyond theory, exposes of theory, exposes of neo-classical economics, definitional blueprints of new socialist states/economies, democratic transposition to communist axioms and the recasting of liberal issues, such as rights, inside a neo-communist framework: the two extremes are in reality close cousins and could do well together even given the basic critique of liberal/parliamentary outstanding on the left. What is deadly is the kind of ‘russian’ detestation of liberalism, and the onset of a revolution run by djerzhinsky style secret police with the power to denounce rights as bourgeois fictions on the way to concentration camps. Because of that legacy and the inability to this day for most marxists to even see the point, the whole game may be beyond repair.
But a complete reboot, or rather an altogether new ‘boot’ in a new operating system milieu should be able to marshall public opinion to a voluntarily embraced neo-communism, one with a core ecological foundation, a democratic constitution, and a set of experimental hybrid planned/market sectors.
Instead of compromise with social democratic fancies we can, in the style of our two manifestos of ‘democratic market neo-communism’ recast ‘social democracy’ on the other side the ‘expropriation of private property/capital’. Then social democracy reborn as communism can thrive, but only if the executors of this can think freely and intelligently about the whole opportunity without marxist/leninist chapter and verse.

———————–
End of history or the paralysis of the left?
December 20th, 2017 ·

It is hard to deal with the damage done by Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ thesis. It was, to be sure, an idea that was originally a leftist one and that version no doubt had its own problems. If we take Marx’s ‘stages of production’ theory as a rubric we see the implicit ‘end of history’ claim in the thesis of the transition from the epoch of capitalism to that of communism. Such a thesis is no more scientific than Fukuyama’s. Fukuyama has really ditched Hegel and is claiming that scientific method, technology and capitalism are what is really driving history.

But, pace the eonic effect, we can see that this is also false. The scientific method didn’t exist until very late and technology can hardly be used to take into account man’s esthetic innovations or his religious histories. In fact the whole domain of values is seamless integrated into history and science cannot explain this. As for capitalism, everything in the study of civilization suggests a balance of statist and market processes. Markets are a natural phenomenon arising we know not quite when but they were related to but distinct from the state and don’t account for state emergence. The modern libertarian capitalism is a distinctly late ideology and it can’t really account for its own history.
If we examine the eonic effect we can see that what drives history is very complicated indeed and that there is a directed process of development that is related to all the missing factors we have pointed to: religion, aesthetics, and in fact the whole spectrum of civilizational innovation, from the state to technology itself. In fact technology has become relatively autonomous as a creative process but that was not always so. The construction of the pyramids, the great irrigation systems were statist economic systems.
If examine the Greek Archaic in the light of the eonic effect we can see the mysterious differential intervals of the eonic series at work.

So, the claims for capitalism are simple ideological, propaganda. And we can see now that this is a dangerous ideological because it induces a let go or total surrender to market forces and that is both dangerous and finally delusive. The confusion arises from the ‘market effect’ which seems to rival or surpass regulation as a mediator of economic allocation. But the debate over this has been pseudo-scientific, whatever the equal failing of claims of economic top-down control. The fact of the matter is that markets have at all points shown their limits and the absurdity of the whole set of claims in now drastically obvious in an era where thinking is so befuddled by market mania that the climate crisis remains denied by the proponents of market ideology.
In any case it is important, whatever other conclusions we might consider, that the neo-liberal ‘end of history’ thesis is dangerously false.

R48G: climbing Mt. Improbable…Fukuyama’s false historical driver is no better than that of ‘historical materialism’
May 9th, 2017 ·

In their place, he suggested that the modern scientific method coupled with technological advancement, alongside market capitalism as a form of mass information-processing for the allocation of resources, could explain how humanity had successfully managed to develop – haltingly, but definitely – on an upward course of civilisational progress.

We have repeatedly critiques ‘historical materialism’ but Fukuyama’s motor of history is no better. A look at the eonic effect shows that something far more complex is involved than science, technology, or market capitalism. This could hardly explain the descent of man or civilization since the Neolithic.

The eonic effect shows that a complex macrodriver operates behind the scenes to ‘climb Mt. Improbable’.

Fukuyama jettisoned Hegel’s implausible metaphysics, as well as Marx’s idea of ‘dialectical materialism’, as the proposed motor of historical synthesis. In their place, he suggested that the modern scientific method coupled with technological advancement, alongside market capitalism as a form of mass information-processing for the allocation of resources, could explain how humanity had successfully managed to develop – haltingly, but definitely – on an upward course of civilisational progress. The catch, however, was that we had now gone as far as it was possible to go. Liberal democratic capitalism was the final stage of Historical synthesis: no less inherently contradictory form of society was possible.

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

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

Leave a Comment