Capitalism and entrapment: the ‘end of history’ gyp

The ‘end of history’ argument has turned out to be a ‘gyp’: neither the left nor the right can seem to provide anything for the future. The left chants the socialism mantra but has no real conception of how to realize that in practice. At least the original form of the argument was a leftist one until it was egregiously ripped off from the right.
The sad reality is that noone can define a future that really works as the entrapment in capitalism turns rancid/morbid/fatal…
The eonic model suggests the ‘end of the eonic sequence’, an unnerving entry into a future released from the eonic sequence: given the record of what we have seen so far, that does not foment optimism…

———————–
R48G: end of history or end of eonic sequence? man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination by the market…
March 29th, 2017 ·
https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?preview=The+Crisis+of+Modernity_ver4.pdf
This version of the eonic model stages a far better version of both an Hegelian freedom metaphysics and the demonstration of emergent democracy: the model actually produces what Hegel guessed about and Fukuhara actually eliminated: the so-called discrete freedom sequence and the way that historical emergence prompts man toward increased political freedom, which might well suggest
‘democracy’. But the catch here is that macro history can prompt man to freedom but man must make himself and must take the steps toward freedom further to the completion of the task. Big History simply induces a dialectical potential: man must make himself by solving the problem of freedom. Clearly gyration between liberal democracy, capitalism and some form of postcapitalism is the likely near-term outcome. The whole point, cogently noted by the early socialists, was that the field of liberalism was flawed by the domination of capital and that ‘true democracy’ must be redefined. And

the obvious point missed by Fukuhara is seen in the contrast between the birth of democracy in the
English civil war and its erosion in the restoration and its cynical ‘liberal’ settlement.

In the eonic model we reach, not the ‘end of history’ but the probable end of the ‘eonic sequence’: the point at which man must take control of his own history. That cannot be the same as subjecting man irrevocably to forces of the market, something we can now begin to see is going to be a disastrous outcome. Man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination by the market…

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