update: This argument is perhaps too tricky, and we failed to consider that eonic emergents inside transitions tend to resurface in the mideonic period. ‘Revolutions’ are an innovation in world history, in part because change must transform already existing forms, usually in decline. Kant unwitting points to the process (which ended up in the confusing ‘end of history’ argumentof Hegel): his essay on history points to or asks for evidence for ‘the progression toward a perfect constitution’, etc… The eonic effect shows this directly and also the two attempts starting in Ancient Greece. Note that in both cases democracy seeds just at or before the ‘divide’, Solon ca. 600 BCE and in the American and French case (which is confusing and seems to fail and never makes quite clear what it was about) 1800 BCE. In ancient Greece the process remains murky until suddenly in the fifth century we see a democracy in action, it suffers tragedy by the end of the fifth to fourth (is that accurate?).
Note that ‘democracy’ is one of the favorite children of the eonic series and it must be utterly frustrated in the modern case with its American instance, already it seems a failure. But modern times has endless failsafe and exemplars that can carry the future.
But as we have noted and as Marx discussed it well, the democratic format is vulnerable to capture by capitalism, born in the modern case we suggest almost the same time as democracy, at the divide at the Industrial Revolution point. A spectacular conjunction. If we can rescue Marx from his confusions of theory his analysis is very apt and/or taken from the early socialists just before him, and suggests that democracy with a socialist blend can be ‘real democracy’. But his later theories muddled the whole question with a theory of history.
We have been hard on Hegel and he seems to belie or confuse his Kantian beginning but his argument seems to grasp what the eonic process shows clearly: we confront in world history something that can act anywhere anytime and direct somehow the evolution of freedom and the issue of triads enters from earlier mystics and, and, …Marx reaction toward materialism is cogent but doesn’t really establish itself as historical theory.
As to the eonic effect we have a useful tool freed of theistic confusions or hegelian ‘geist’, and confusions of reductionist scientism, but we don’t really know what it is, but we can detect from its spectacular non-coincidental instances its mysterious action. The case of democracy is a good example and it leaves a strange signature: ‘free action’ before the divide shows system action, a kind of push or direction at lower degree of freedom and then becomes free action proper at a higher degree of freedom. Like the third wheel on a child’s bike: the third wheel lowers the degree of freedom so the child can learn, but then the third wheel is removed as the child gains a higher degree of freedom (to ride the bike).
This analogy resembles the ‘induced’ democracy and the subsequence actual democracy in the eonic series. Can man pass the test? The US as current looks fairly hopeless.
Marx wanted ‘materialism’ but as we have shown there is a whole range of such, one being (as in our Sankhya, ancient and modern) of the Samkhya brand, which was actually to end up in the Christian brand in a preposterous blend that suggests ‘atheist Christianity’ was actually an original viewpoint.
We could rewrite Hegel as Samkhya materialism, to a chorus of howls of protest.
Modernity, the eonic effect and revolution
This is the most tricky kind of argument using the eonic effect but its indication is important, but only after careful study of the eonic model.
The point is the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’ in the phase of ‘eonic transitions’. Suddenly we get an insight into the difficulty the left has had with ‘revolutions’. There is (apparently) a distinction of revolutions with system action, like the French or American Revolutions and revolutions of free agency, like the Russian revolution. There is a lot so say here, but we might simply note that there is something obvious here with respect to the Russian case which suffered a confusion of democratic revolution and communist evolution. Everyone has always noted some anomalous about Bolshevism.
Marx’s attempt to make the case that a future revolution against capitalism on the way to communism will be the result of an historical dynamic in the sense of historical materialism is bad science and a source of great confusion for the left.
Clearly, future revolutions require careful deliberation over the nature of freely created revolutionary outcomes, a very difficult task and the reason the left tends to be stymied. But as the world system closes in on capitalism and ecological calamity immense care needs to be set on the issue without the bad science of Marxist ‘historical materialism’. Men have to freely create revolutionary change mindful of the ‘Murphy’s law’ effect that have occurred even in the earlier era.
That said, it is easy to see why Marx got confused here. The first transitions of the early modern are the Reformation and the proto-communism of Munzer in the early sixteenth century just after Luther, a key deliberation of Engles. Let us note that the first revolutionary nexus of modern times, beside the Reformation, was communism which preceeds even the the democratic revolutions. Note the way the gestating democracy of the English Civil war suffered chaotification and the whole phase passed into the suddenly conservatizing if not reactionary era of the Restorian, the classical case of coopted bourgois revolution passing into the era of the Parliament.
Source: A Guide to the French Revolution