History and Epochal Transitions? problems with ‘stages of production’ theory

Like a Cheshire cat the ‘eonic effect’ fades into shimmering background as an empirical series of epochal transitions replaces it, and stages of production theory…

September 26th, 2018 ·

History and epochal transitions?
March 26th, 2018 ·
The legacy of Marxism contains a rich load of potential tools but is marred by the confusions of theory that beset Marx (and Engels) and rendered their work overall a contradictory package in practice. Continue reading History and Epochal Transitions? problems with ‘stages of production’ theory

Carbon Capture: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Climate Change 

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report lays out a rather grim set of observations, predictions and warnings. Perhaps the biggest takeaway? That the world cannot warm more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5°C) over pre-industrial levels without significant impacts.If the world warms a mere half a degree more than that, hundreds of millions of people could face dire consequences—namely famine, disease and displacement—from things like rising sea levels and increased drought and flooding.

Source: Carbon Capture: What We Don’t Talk About When We Talk About Climate Change | Alternet

Eonic Effects: World history: a complex enigma

Confronting the riddle of world history
January 13th, 2018 •
After all the debate and discussion from the left the stark reality remains that Marxist views of history suffer from a flawed foundation in economic fundamentalism. A far broader view is needed that can handle the places of values, the question of free will (or free agency), questions of art, religion, and philosophy. The original perspectives were too narrow and too reductionist after the style of emerging scientism/positivism. We don’t really need a ‘science’ of history, an invitation to fallacy, so much as a simple map or chronicle done empirically as a backdrop for a value-based account of a futurist project (of socialism/communism).

The eonic effect is somehow very tricky but exposes the false attachment to Darwinism that pervades Marxism with fallacious axioms, but in the end it points to a set of historical subtleties that make mincemeat of most attempts to subject history to social control as ideological fixation on Machiavellian politics, economics, and technology.
The complicated enigma disguising a hidden teleology demands a far more complex view of the historical than can be provided by current assumptions, mostly based on premature dogmas of how to do science. The fact remains that both evolution and history elude a scientific foundation and part of the reason is the issue facts and values confounds all attempts at a solution to the riddle.
There is a reasonably simple way out, which is to follow the contours of the so-called ‘eonic effect’ as an outline which itself solves the problem historical dynamics.
In any case the future of socialism requires moving beyond the failed strategies of Marxism and the confusion it created over stages of history.

archive: The Selfish Gene as neo-liberal ideology

The Selfish Gene as neo-liberal ideology
January 29th, 2016 ·
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2016/01/the-selfish-gene-turns-40.html#more
The Selfish Gene is one of the most successful yet second-rate books on the subject of evolution in the whole course of the paradigm. Behind its smooth Dawkins-style PR scientism lies the whole gross fallacy of Darwinism rendered the more toxic with its ‘inclusive fitness’ bullshit, which does the same thing all over again that Adam Smith did for economics. Duh, it appeared at the dawn of the neo-liberal age.
The period in question should have seen scientists pull away from Darwinism: its problems were obvious to many (like SJ Gould, and better, Soren Lovtrup) but instead with Dawkins’ type of ideological fix the paradigm has survived to the present.
We should blame the ID movement on this situation: the flaws in Darwinism were so obvious that their suppression caused the whole critique to shift to the ID underground and with Denton’s Evolution in Crisis that movement took off (that book is not about ID, but a classic on the flaws of Darwinism). Biologists have only themselves to blame.
Why did this happen? In a real science, criticisms would be front and center immediately.
The Selfish Gene was exposed at once by Mary Midgely, but her critique was marred by her own confusions over core ‘natural selection’ Darwinism…
The result here is that The Selfish Gene is really an ideological coup in disguise, one the left was not really able to expose…