Toward a postdarwinian left

Toward a postdarwinian left
July 20th, 2018

Taking up a radical critique of darwinism might be the correct recipe to break old mindsets and set the left into a post-theoretical mode that is wary of theory and ideology.
An untold story is the way darwinism entered the left in a destructive and violent interpretation of class struggle all too apparent in ‘class’ genocides of the bolshevik era.
In a strange finesse the right has pursued both a social darwinist agenda and a postdarwinist innovation that has become enmired in the design argument.
The left should simply take over the design argument, in an agnostic mode, and lead the way into a left that is critique of the crypto-ideological darwin legacy.
———————
A leftist make over on the issue of evolution?
December 13th, 2017 •
One of the most remarkable confusions of modern culture is the way a reductionist version of evolution, viz. darwinism came into being to displace a promising set of starts that were on the right track. The left has been a particular victim of this botched starting point. The left needs a complete make over on the issue of evolutionary theories, and a redress against its tendency to condone implicitly the social darwinist implications of the natural selectionist perspective and its fundamentalists…
——————-
From Lamarck and the teleomechanists to the fallacies of darwinism
October 17th, 2017 •
ttp://www.npr.org/2016/08/27/491492977/in-tom-wolfes-kingdom-speech-is-the-one-weird-trick
Wolfe has raised an obvious point: we have no really convincing picture of the ‘evolution’ of speech, let alone man as a whole. But that problem goes back all the way, and we have no good evolutionary account of the emergence of life, the Cambrian, etc…
The problem lies not in the term ‘evolution’ but in the equation of that with random evolution, natural selection. I think the biological community should rescue the situation from disaster and toss in the towel on darwinism. Wolfe has no coherent alternative that I can see but his point is well taken: if you play by the rules then you can’t just throw around the term evolution if it doesn’t explain anything.
I think that the mainline darwinism that came into existence with Wallace/Darwin (I think Wallace was the real source, as Wolfe intimates) has confused everyone and is in reality an interloper: it was long preceded by a soon displace post-Kantian biology that grappled with the real problems, the teleomechanists who attempted to create a methodology for evolutionary biology that wasn’t reductionist. And it was preceded by the work of the real first evolutionary theorist here: Lamarck, who considered a double aspect to evolution, a high level evolution of forms complexifying, and a lower level of environmental adaptation. Given the evidence of deep time this is the most obvious solution to the overall problem. But darwinism and organizational science somehow got convinced that one level evolutionism was the only way to do science. It is thus sadly frustrating that the right approach in two cases was displaced by the later dogmas of Darwin, mostly from Wallace, who promptly disavowed his own transitional discovery. His stance was a useful way station because it helped biologists to visualize ‘divergence’ with a place holder ‘mechanism’, in this case natural selection. Once divergence was grasped it was entirely apt to try and replace the ‘mechanism’ with something less simplistic than natural selection.
I think biologists, and the Dawkins group, ought to see the handwriting on the wall, and I would recommend a look at the data/model of WHEE (history and evolution.com) to get a feeling for the kind of two level system that Lamarck intuitively saw from the start. World history is not the same as evolution in deep time, quite obviously, but there must be invariant aspects to the kind of two level system we see in world history. The latter can be especially tricky because it adopts a special version for the model in question attempting to analyze the ‘evolution of freedom’. But the latter must have been an aspect of human evolution, and we are suspicious this later historical instance is really a later version of what was true of man from the start: his organismic and cultural evolution as one entity from the start.
I think that this approach can bypass the red herring of design arguments used to produce theological conclusions, and ground the discussion in a look at the overall dynamic of evolution without getting mired in speculations over ‘mechanism’.
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_5.htm

R48G: we are not required as ‘democratic market neo-communists’ required to defend the record of bolshevism…
November 10th, 2017 •
https://www.bolshevik.info/once-again-in-defence-of-lenin-a-reply-to-orlando-figes.htm
We can quote our brief remarks on this good essay from marxist.com (previous post):
It is important for leftists to make their case and try to set the record straight but the facts of the case are obscured on both sides. It is very difficult to fully agree with any account at this point, such is the confusion of historical/partisan accounts.

In any case we have suggested here many times the need for a new communism to distance itself from the history of bolshevism and focus on the future with a new framework rather than the past. As this article notes at the beginning the view of the public in general is so hostile that it is simply holding back the left to feel one has to justify the whole bolshevik legacy.
If the left has to constantly defend the record of Lenin and bolshevism the achievement of a new communism will never happen. It is to be sure essential to correct the distortions of conventional historians, but overall the movement beyond capitalism requires a new initiative whose answer to the charges against and citing the Russian Revolution is that we doing something different and don’t have to defend Leninism, etc…
It seems an elusive point for many marxist/leninists but the reality has to be faced. In our two manifestos we have suggested a new approach. In fact the formulation allows a series of approaches.
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf
But the basic issue is that we have arrived at a stage of mature capitalism in countries that have bourgeois democracies. The model of the Russian Revolution is misleading everyone.
One interpretation of our framework is to simply expropriate capital and ecological resources to a Commons and not necessarily equate communism with the abolition of markets. In postcapitalism a combination of markets (in the context of public ownership), planning and a kind of ‘anarchist’ lower threshold or indifference level could enable a neo-communist matrix with a lot of reserve potential and diversity of methods.
The example of Lenin is not really what we should up to at this point. We might even interpret our framework as a ‘communist liberalism’ and/or a ‘liberal communism’.

July 20th, 2018

Taking up a radical critique of darwinism might be the correct recipe to break old mindsets and set the left into a post-theoretical mode that is wary of theory and ideology.
An untold story is the way darwinism entered the left in a destructive and violent interpretation of class struggle all too apparent in ‘class’ genocides of the bolshevik era.
In a strange finesse the right has pursued both a social darwinist agenda and a postdarwinist innovation that has become enmired in the design argument.
The left should simply take over the design argument, in an agnostic mode, and lead the way into a left that is critique of the crypto-ideological darwin legacy.
———————
A leftist make over on the issue of evolution?
December 13th, 2017 •
One of the most remarkable confusions of modern culture is the way a reductionist version of evolution, viz. darwinism came into being to displace a promising set of starts that were on the right track. The left has been a particular victim of this botched starting point. The left needs a complete make over on the issue of evolutionary theories, and a redress against its tendency to condone implicitly the social darwinist implications of the natural selectionist perspective and its fundamentalists…
——————-
From Lamarck and the teleomechanists to the fallacies of darwinism
October 17th, 2017 •
ttp://www.npr.org/2016/08/27/491492977/in-tom-wolfes-kingdom-speech-is-the-one-weird-trick
Wolfe has raised an obvious point: we have no really convincing picture of the ‘evolution’ of speech, let alone man as a whole. But that problem goes back all the way, and we have no good evolutionary account of the emergence of life, the Cambrian, etc…
The problem lies not in the term ‘evolution’ but in the equation of that with random evolution, natural selection. I think the biological community should rescue the situation from disaster and toss in the towel on darwinism. Wolfe has no coherent alternative that I can see but his point is well taken: if you play by the rules then you can’t just throw around the term evolution if it doesn’t explain anything.
I think that the mainline darwinism that came into existence with Wallace/Darwin (I think Wallace was the real source, as Wolfe intimates) has confused everyone and is in reality an interloper: it was long preceded by a soon displace post-Kantian biology that grappled with the real problems, the teleomechanists who attempted to create a methodology for evolutionary biology that wasn’t reductionist. And it was preceded by the work of the real first evolutionary theorist here: Lamarck, who considered a double aspect to evolution, a high level evolution of forms complexifying, and a lower level of environmental adaptation. Given the evidence of deep time this is the most obvious solution to the overall problem. But darwinism and organizational science somehow got convinced that one level evolutionism was the only way to do science. It is thus sadly frustrating that the right approach in two cases was displaced by the later dogmas of Darwin, mostly from Wallace, who promptly disavowed his own transitional discovery. His stance was a useful way station because it helped biologists to visualize ‘divergence’ with a place holder ‘mechanism’, in this case natural selection. Once divergence was grasped it was entirely apt to try and replace the ‘mechanism’ with something less simplistic than natural selection.
I think biologists, and the Dawkins group, ought to see the handwriting on the wall, and I would recommend a look at the data/model of WHEE (history and evolution.com) to get a feeling for the kind of two level system that Lamarck intuitively saw from the start. World history is not the same as evolution in deep time, quite obviously, but there must be invariant aspects to the kind of two level system we see in world history. The latter can be especially tricky because it adopts a special version for the model in question attempting to analyze the ‘evolution of freedom’. But the latter must have been an aspect of human evolution, and we are suspicious this later historical instance is really a later version of what was true of man from the start: his organismic and cultural evolution as one entity from the start.
I think that this approach can bypass the red herring of design arguments used to produce theological conclusions, and ground the discussion in a look at the overall dynamic of evolution without getting mired in speculations over ‘mechanism’.
http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/chap3_5.htm

R48G: we are not required as ‘democratic market neo-communists’ required to defend the record of bolshevism…
November 10th, 2017 •
https://www.bolshevik.info/once-again-in-defence-of-lenin-a-reply-to-orlando-figes.htm
We can quote our brief remarks on this good essay from marxist.com (previous post):
It is important for leftists to make their case and try to set the record straight but the facts of the case are obscured on both sides. It is very difficult to fully agree with any account at this point, such is the confusion of historical/partisan accounts.

In any case we have suggested here many times the need for a new communism to distance itself from the history of bolshevism and focus on the future with a new framework rather than the past. As this article notes at the beginning the view of the public in general is so hostile that it is simply holding back the left to feel one has to justify the whole bolshevik legacy.
If the left has to constantly defend the record of Lenin and bolshevism the achievement of a new communism will never happen. It is to be sure essential to correct the distortions of conventional historians, but overall the movement beyond capitalism requires a new initiative whose answer to the charges against and citing the Russian Revolution is that we doing something different and don’t have to defend Leninism, etc…
It seems an elusive point for many marxist/leninists but the reality has to be faced. In our two manifestos we have suggested a new approach. In fact the formulation allows a series of approaches.
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=Two+Manifestos+version+2.pdf
But the basic issue is that we have arrived at a stage of mature capitalism in countries that have bourgeois democracies. The model of the Russian Revolution is misleading everyone.
One interpretation of our framework is to simply expropriate capital and ecological resources to a Commons and not necessarily equate communism with the abolition of markets. In postcapitalism a combination of markets (in the context of public ownership), planning and a kind of ‘anarchist’ lower threshold or indifference level could enable a neo-communist matrix with a lot of reserve potential and diversity of methods.
The example of Lenin is not really what we should up to at this point. We might even interpret our framework as a ‘communist liberalism’ and/or a ‘liberal communism’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s