Marxism is almost a sacred canon but at this point, it has served its historical purpose and needs a critique that can point to a viable socialist outcome. One issue is the confusion of historical theories. Without all that the rest of marxism can be used/recycled easily.
But the stage of socialism has to be more than a definition realized: it must show an advance on the whole history of political science: the progress toward a perfect civil constitution needs to be a superior set of innovations in politics and culture based on a shared commons and the expropriation of property/capital.
R48G: progress toward a perfect civil constitution…
March 21st, 2017 •
The issue of Kant and history…
the basic intent is to simplify the confusion created by marxism and jumpstart a new and practical approach using elements of the marxist legacy taken in reserve.
Marxist historical theory doesn’t work and has been critiqued many times. It is a non-teleological crypto- teleological theory about a set of entities far too complex for such a simplified analysis. The danger is that while waiting for the next stage after capitalism we will remain passive until the capitalist era exhausts its potential: the latter will never happen. We will burn out the planet before we exhaust all the useless combinations of capitalism.
We are betrayed by theory here in the puzzle of marx’s complex deliberations and overly complex analysis. And that includes the confusions over the labor theory of value, and the latter makes much better sense if you stop trying to produce a theory. Much of Marx’s analysis remains of great interest, viz. analyses of class struggle but overall it belongs to the era of positivism (still quite current) and its
‘scientism’. We need to pay our dues to the era of Feuerbach in which marx and Engels worked and adopt a secular perspective but there are many ways to do that and we need to consider the limits of the materialism of the period which gestated socialist thought. Marx’s attempt to create a science confused the issue and the result was never really a science. We see the second international proceed
down the garden path of a ‘science’ that should have been something less ambitious and focused on the practical.
Instead of attempts to rationalize ‘stages of production’ theory in the fashion of Marx we could do better by considering a classic essay on history written by Kant: there is the issue of teleology is taken explicitly, but the core of the piece is to ask a question about history and refer the question to the future. The analysis of the eonic effect attempts to point to the probable solution to Kant’s question which also asks for a demonstration of the passage to a perfect civil constitution.
There is a key to a new praxis: can we detect the solution to the riddle of civil ‘evolution’? Indeed we can and the eonic effect (in earlier versions with its ‘discrete freedom sequence’) shows just this. So, instead of a succession of systems in deterministic directionality, we have the prospect of moving toward replacing capitalist democracy with renewed progress toward a perfect civil constitution. The current madness is hardly perfection! This is the task of free agents nor mechanical systems or economic structures.