We have produced some fairly radical perspectives here but it does not follow that we endorse all the theories of marxists or Marx.
Our discussion of the eonic effect should sound a warning to marxists to review the claims for historical materialism. We can see that there is no real correlation (except in a very fuzzy way) between the stages of history and the economic systems associated with them. To make claims about base and superstructure in such a complicated history of civilization inflicts a very difficult theory on those who aim is to create socialism, not to produce a science of history.
we will discuss this further, but we should rush to make a suggestion: drop marxist theories and stay with empirical histories. Marx was good at empirical observations and not so good with theories.
The problem with historical materialism is that it won’t work with world history and if you associate it with socialism your critics will simply observe that the theory is false, therefore socialism is off the mark.
The obvious answer is that socialism should never have been associated with such a brittle theory as historical materialism. Why on earth did Marx do it this way?
There is a much better way to process these ideologies: there is a definite trend in world history toward freedom variously defined and progression toward democracy is an associated trend. We can simply observe that the axioms of socialism are first cousins to those of democracy and that ‘democratic socialism’ is a logical outcome to the struggle for freedom. That puts the issue to the philosophy and axioms of freedom, equality and justice, not marx’s progression of economic epochs.
Let us hope that marxists are not too far gone in their thinking to be able to have a paradigm shift.