The eonic effect as the simplest model of ‘epochs’: a good exit path from marxist confusion over history.

Marx’s was a brilliant mind but he got stuck on the issue of historical laws and a science of history. His ‘stages of production’ theory posits a sequence of eras or epochs: feudalism, capitalism, and communism. But that doesn’t really work. He then erects a teleological theory on top of that, even as he denounces teleology. The whole structure is confused, as many have pointed out.
There is a simpler way: take the periodization of the ‘eonic model’: we find a very clear alternate:
Paleolithic/Neolithic
the era or epoch of Sumer/Egypt after ca. 3000 BCE
the era or epoch of classical antiquity, and the parallel cultural systems that make it up: Greece/Rome, Israel/Persia or Zoroastrian history, India, China (i.e. a Eurasian constellation)
the era or epoch of modernity, after 1800, with its early modern lead-up. The other two above have lead-ups.
This is perhaps the most natural periodization of world history. There is no dogma here, but this corresponds to a real dynamic of some kind.
This periodization in its second phase goes from the start of classical antiquity to modern times.
That much ofthis is decline and then medievalist has confused almost all parties until the 19th/20th centuries. Marx’s feudalism is thus simply one part of the classical world’s continuation, up to and until the rise of modernity. There is no epoch of capitalism. Capitalism was gestating already in the Stone age truck and barter of obsidian. The proto-capitalism of the first era after Sumer shows many premonitions of capitalism
Decoding_World_History_ED0x1
As does the classical era. But then in modern times after 1500 a distinct capitalism starts to emerge
but even there it certainly no new ‘stage of history’ and was mostly a kind of subset of a larger system. Then around the last generation of the 18th century a new and specific type of capitalism does emerge and it is graced with none other than Adam Smith. And others. And it is synchronous with the Industrial Revolution and various financial instruments that tokens an economic revolution. And Marx/Engels are there on the spot to both explain and challenge this. Marx did a brilliant job here but his theory of epochs is not right.
It should be simple to simply ditch them and use a more general approach as above. But there is no
exact correlation with economic systems, and that is natural. Trying to divide world history into
economic epochs doesn’t work. And there is no mechanical law of history that will move society from capitalism to communism. There is again a simpler solution: the left should take the issue to be the modern epoch as such and its realization. That epoch shows a clear double or multitasking. Capitalism and communism emerge as a pair or multiplicity. And these are provoking the creation of a path to a dialectical opposition asking for a new system that can resolve the contradiction.
That new synthesis must come from active effort and has no guarantee.
But Marx despite his bad theories saw the obvious point: the problematical character of capitalist
economics was that of an incomplete birth: the future demanded a new hybrid of economic and democratic synthesis. One problem with Marx’s approach is that is assumed ‘communism’ was defined and that history would move automatically to that stage. It seems not right. The future may well abort. The modern world should have seen socialism realized in the period around 1848 as Marx/Engels originally said. The long delay is proving fatal and entrenching
a form of society now doomed by climate change.
But we can realize that socialist/democratic future by our own efforts, it there is still time
But no one can specify what that is and simply assume the Marx formula has done that for them.
But the slogan for communism means nothing until it is defined. Otherwise, as with Bolshevism
the system as it actually stumbled into revolution had no real project to realize
Our DMNC model is itself so limited, but at least in principle points to a constructivist path here.
Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2)
gives a model to analyze as multiple components. The amount of work required to realize a communist democracy with a sound economy is huge. Marxists
tend to think they should do that in advance, a mistake as we can see.

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