Finished short section in Preface opening discussion of ecological/socialist issues. More to come in later chapters… Historical materialism, despite the efforts of figures like Bellamy, is a really poor perspective for eco-socialism. The eonic effect shows clearly the way the early modern is a balanced transition with the Enlightenment and the Romantic movement in synchronous counterpoint. The Romantic era is one of real sources of the coming ecology.
In general the eonic effect shows massive correlation with almost all the innovations, movements, religion, secularism, etc,… in world history. The idea that economics is the prime mover of historical eras and periods is simply false.
Marxists are completely closed in like a cult. I can’t even post a link at Marmail (I did once for a very early edition without much Marx criticism). Marxists would do well to study their critics, and this critique especially. Their opponents will.
Starting to bring in a lot of eco-socialist material, and other issues. Marxists e.g. Bellamy are claiming Marx was an ecologist all along. The evidence is marginal but the attempt is worthy, however: trying to add ecology to the Marx canon is another round of Marxist monopoly cultism. The eonic model shows the far larger and better resources of the modern transition on ecology: cf. the Romantic Movement. Historical materialism has to be just about the worse approach to ecology possible.
We have a new page showing how the eonic model or simply its basic data/chronology falsifies historical materialism. Marx was obsessed with creating a science/theory of history, and the fate of most theories is falsification. It is puzzling that Marx should have gotten stuck on this point, but he wanted to make the passage beyond capitalism a kind of historical guarantee. It doesn’t work and throws the whole Marx project into a kind of limbo. Let’s be clear: you can’t impose on humanity a theory of history that almost everyone else knows is false. Yet Marxists are totally stuck on this issue. They live in a cultic dream world and their fate is to have no further chances for social transformation. Even sympathetic socialists won’t stand for it.
We have bypassed the issue by sticking to simple chronologies of history and the result is surprisingly suggestive of what a real science of history would be, but we can’t carry out that project because we have both too much and too little data: for what we see the literature is immense, millions of books, literally, for what we don’t see very well, e.g. the Neolithic, we are left high and dry: we can’t conclude how to take the Neolithic (although it is obvious to the naked eye that a set of hidden transitions are probably there).
It is time to denounce the immense harm done by Darwinism and the stupid ‘scientists’ who enforce dogma there. The data of the eonic effect should be a university study as a solid foundation of a new kind of post-theory. But the dogmatists reign supreme and won’t even spit in the direction of anyone who dissents from the whole shebang of ideological pseudo-science enforced to keep people in a social darwinist economic culture.
From the new Preface
Is revolution a patriotic duty?
But is the American system crippled beyond repair, even for a revolutionary restart? The Last Revolution could start better in many places, but the US will soon destroy it. So the American case is perhaps the only starting point. The US was/is not really a democracy at all, ignored the warnings of the British it would be genocidal to the indigenous peoples, could not declare against slavery, created an endemic racist legacy, crippled Latin America and the Middle East with repeated imperialistic action, turned into a stooge of criminal Zionists, rapidly became a Wall Street oligarchy, is now controlled by covert agencies and that phantom, The Deep State, and murdered its own citizens in the 9/11 false flag operation, the inability to control gun laws and the reign of hundreds of mass murders,… The terminal brainwashing of the American Republic is a dangerous new Leviathan masquerading as a republic.
The legacy of Marxism is been a failure and made socialism seem unobtainable.
The reality is that it should be easy to establish a socialist system, as long as we confront the issue of Capital as private property. That’s the hard part, but the dynamics of a socialist society should be far simpler than the mental confusion about theory left by Marxism. Enough of it. Real socialism can be described in a few pages. We don’t need an elaborate theory of history, economic determinism, dialectic, battles with Hegel, battles between idealism and materialism, it is all useless and had confused almost everyone.
The main thing is to create a socialist economy that is functional, a task beyond the ken of Marxist/bolshevik derivatives. Beyond that the issue of democracy cannot be resolved in the dismissal of liberalism that lead to dictatorship. The trick is to create a neo-communism out of a liberal system, and add economic rights.