Using the eonic model instead of brain-dead historical materialism….

Marxism, as we see from the previous post is almost certainly doomed to no second chances. But if it is not it will take a terrible toll on those intelligent enough to see the useless theory baggage, plus a lot of others plus almost everyone.

I have followed these debates over marxist theories, or Marx’s theories for almost five decades and  I am completely sick of them.  Who cares about Marx’s sacred canon of brilliant chestnuts. They will always be refuted and then revived and re-refuted. The left needs to start over with something that has a chance for social transformation and a sane socialism. Marxists say they are revolutionaries but I doubt it. They are content to chew Marxist cud and ruminate over the sacred canon.  It may be that a revolution beyond capitalism is impossible, at least for Marxists.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Our DMNC model shows how you can construct a socialist model in a few pages, without theoretical baggage.  A set of recipes is far better.  With a little care it could be very popular: people would like a socialism that gave them jobs, economic rights, health care, education, democracy subject to some constraints ( an example would be that you can’t try to take over the Commons for  private purposes), legal rights, etc…Bolshevism flunked everyone of the above tests. It is not communism at all. In our approach using the DMNC model you must have four (or more) basics: democracy, markets, planning, a Commons. Or you can’t use the term.

The issue of world history is nonsense in Marxism. A better approach is the eonic model: you may not like the terminology but at its core which you are free to extract it shows only periodization with given empirical foundations, more or less. That periodization shows the ‘evolution’ of civilization we suspect and it embraces all categories. If you disagree that’s fine, but the periodization of the data is all you need. The overall effect is comprehensive: it embraces materialism and idealism, all possible philosophies and their histories, secularism and religion, the histories of religion, the Enlightenment and modernity, etc…That is a far richer base on which to found a socialist open society, with constraiints, but no foundational dogmas like histomat or dialectical materialism.
Try this as an exercise. The grotesque character of Marxist theory (and theory means just that, a lot of things are still useful). Thsi approach isn’t boxed into a corner where dissent becomes a threat to the state.

Source:  The near impossibility of critiquing marxist religious dogma… – 1848+: The End(s) of History

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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