Two books on the eonic effect:
I have not read the new research referred to but the older views of Marxists and of Marx (and most other scholars perhaps) have not been able to produce any deep understanding of the emergence of civilization: the confusion over Darwinism, and the fallacies of historical materialism, block any real understanding, now visible in the data of the eonic effect and its model. Next to that is the confusion over the history of capitalism which is not a modern phenomenon: capitalism in primitive forms has existed since the dawn of civilization but often mixed with the legacy of slavery.
But the larger issue is to see that world history has a mysterious driver next to a strange parallel effect. This data shows a clear dynamic behind the rise of civilization and probably starts in the Neolithic or before. It is not accurate to see economic forces behind this, although they are obviously embedded in the larger system. There a many aspects of world history that simply defy the method of historical materialism: the issue of emergent democracy, the strange pattern of aesthetic, religious and philosophical advance. How can Marxists explain the emergence of world religion, so obviously connected to the eonic effect? How will they deal with the emergence of Buddhism and the path of enlightenment? What is the strange dynamic of early Israelitism? Further, the issue of slavery confounds most studies of modes of production.
World history has been captured by multiple ideologies beyond the Marxist and the data of the eonic effect are still beyond the grasp of almost all scholars. The evolution of civilization shows a clear macro effect and it is time for scholars to consider the evidence staring us in the face. One thing is apparently certain: both Marxists and world historians will do everything they can to ignore this evidence.
Update: one of the ironies of our critique here is that modern left, and the emergence of democracy AND socialism are ‘eonic effects’, correlated with the eonic sequence in the modern transition and this starts with both the Reformation and the appearance of Thomas Munzer. So, and it is a good laugh, Marx/Engels are themselves ‘eonic data’.
Update 2: the emergence of Christianity (in the context of the early Israelite transition) is in fact a mystery even now (despite its obvious connection indirectly via the Judaic legacy) and is not an eonic effect as such and yet is directly parallel with the emergence of the Mahayana in the second stage of Buddhism around the period of the turn of the millennium. The history of Christianity is a thus a super mystery, yet obviously connecte to the larger pattern of religious development in the Axial Age. Historical materialism is almost laughable as a means of explanation here. But everyone else is confused also, including Christians themselves.
Marx’s chief interest in past societies stemmed from his need to establish a general mechanism for all processes of social transformation, which would help to explain both the advent of capitalism and its predictable descent into crisis. He depicted history as a progression of stages from antiquity through feudalism to capitalism and thence to socialism.For Marx, the transition from one stage to another came about through changes in the mode of production, arising from transformations in technology and other factors, and through the struggle between the social classes formed by each mode (masters and slaves, landlords and serfs, bourgeoisie and proletariat).