There are Amazon hard copy and kindle versions of World History and the Eonic Effect and free online pdf’s of those at dropbox.
and an abridged version
Should you read these books? Definitely. But you won’t, most probably. Face it, you are brainwashed/braindead on history. Have you read even one book on world history? You get the picture.
To be sure these books seem complicated. I fear they are not complicated enough. A real theory here would be thousands of pages and would need a lot more data in confirmation or falsification.
But the ‘model’, not a theory, is a ‘glove’ model: it roughly fits the data in large blocks which you then have to proceed to study. Once you get the knack it is easy to use.
That ‘model’ shows something truly spectacular. And further it probably shows indirectly the real key to any theory of evolution, in deep time or in history: things develop with short bursts between intervals of slower change. The idea resembles punctuated equilibrium. But Gould mishandled the idea so we don’t use it.
Amazingly we see this transitional process in world history, but only just barely, in three beats.
We can’t close on a theory and we can’t ignore the effect: so what we do is study the ‘eonic effect’ empirically in its glove model and that works wonders on our study of world history. In that form it is a most clarifying outline of history with hints of something more, something truly spectacular.
That’s why we are critical of Marx: he attempts a grand theory and that fails badly. Productive force determinism so-called just doesn’t work. A marxist would be better off with a simple empirical outline of world history (how about a simplified version of the eonic model) in which economies are studied with the same empiricism. Then we see at once a more complex picture, instead of feudalism, capitalism, communism, we see dozens of economic types, from the Neolithic (or even Paleolithic) onward.
The issue of communism arises as a factor of economics and democracy, equality and principles of fairness, etc…The idea suddenly appears/reappears in concert with the modern transition (conisder More’s classic, the English Civil War) and then again with the industrial revolution, roughly: its appearance seems prophetic now: capitalism has turned deadly… Marx and Engels gave it a huge send off but their formulation (note the factor of free action) was flawed as theory. Chuck out the theories and you have a lot of empirical stuff that is useful.
But classic marxists armed with Marx’s theories turned out to be dangerous and incompetent. They don’t deserve and won’t get a second chance. Note the way democracy appeared (in a transition) and then nose dived. We ended up waiting 2400 years to try again, with eonic help. Note the similar fate of modern marxist revolutionism.
We don’t want to wait 2400 years to get economics right. We can stage a second attempt if we can sideline marxist idiots and thugs after pilfering the stuff they actually got right. Our ‘democratic market neo-communism’ is communism in baby shoes learning to walk. It takes the idea from a simple remorphing of what we have as liberal democracy and builds in the communist aspect benignly. It is a good way to start and would be easy to realize (if you forget a thousand mad hatter capitalist counterrevolutionaries).
We were always unsure about communism, especially given the bolsheviks.\
But now we can see that capitalist is proving fatal and communism 2.0 is emerging again out of the starting gate. But we cannot rehash Marx or his theories. We need a systematic empirical construct that is safe, practical, democratic,and realizable, etc….