Up from historical materialism
March 9th, 2017 ·
It is not productive to start thrashing ‘historical materialism’ unless we are so hard-pressed we can’t avoid it. We would do better to produce a better version. Our historical framework of the ‘eonic effect’ can do that with ease but the result no longer has the prime focus of economic determination or stages of production. But the phases of the eonic effect show any number of economic formation and we have but to study them in their empirical reality to fulfill the task of the analysis by historical materialism.
There, however, the ‘stage’ of capitalism ceases to be a modern stage of production and becomes a
gestating tendency present since the neolithic and interacting very often externally with a core
economic system. Its crystallization in modern times is thus both a new stage, perhaps, or else a decisive rendition of the whole historical becoming of so-called capitalism, armed with the financial mystique of
‘capital’. But we might wager that ‘capitalism’ of that type was in reality invented by the sumerians.
What we are dealing with is the nature of the state, economies, and political equality as objects of evolving societies where the declaration of communism is a way to reclaim the effects of capitalism for a new social whole. The end state, communism, makes complete sense as the logical outcome of restoration of the entities of primitive accumulation to the Commons, an almost axiomatic derivation of the idea. In any case, the question of slavery is very close in world history to that of capitalism and we have argued that, as far as we can assess the facts of the early sumer/egypt period onward the phenomenon of slavery was a distortion and a social disease, not an inevitable phase of economic society. In the early period of civilization this institution was marginal but slowly but surely became an endemic social misformation, becoming by the time of the Romans a calamity of civilization in the Occident. The slow transformation of society was partially remedied in the coming of christianity before the dread relapse in the modern period as the slave trade intensified and produced social anomaly. It was for this that marx tended to equate capitalism with the modern period but the larger reality is more complex.
A new historical model is needed to account for the social transformation of the christian world, for example. Our eonic model can handle these distinctions with ease and give a warning that spiritual powers must exist in a larger sphere of nature, although it is hard to detect their action. The crisis of rome strongly suggests such a spiritual intervention. Whatever the case as the unknowable, the fact remains that christianity, despite ending up the purveyor of social caste systems, was a revolutionary force at the start for equality and this was more than a question of economics…
In all of this the real core meaning or intent of the concept of historical materialism ‘sort of’ works and we would be wary of trying to revise a settled canon, unless we must. I fear we must. It need not be divisive. Marx’s brilliant thesis, while its theorems suffer failed proofs, more or less got it right. But we must at this point be prepared as free agents in history to propose and carry out the axioms of the commons, communism, as a freely generated social transformation because that is the right thing to do. An ethical assertion in the context of fallacies of economic stages…
Actually, all that is needed is to snap our of concept hypnosis and deal with practical situations.