Marx, marxists and other hopeless idiots…

Looking at the eonic model and then the marxist legacy we can see almost at once the limits of the latter, and its subtle flaws next to its gross oversimplification of world history as economic dynamics. Marx has many useful studies of the question of class in history but at every point his theorizing gets him in trouble. Marx developed a kind of package that must have seemed brilliant for its time but it seems now to be dated and very amateurish. His attempts at theory were inadequate and could just as well be scrapped.
Continue reading “Marx, marxists and other hopeless idiots…”

The economic interpretation of history and marxist theory muddle

Ironically the fallacious ‘economic interpretation of history’ has proven to be a stumbling block to dealing with capitalist strain of social history. We have proposed a non-theoretical marxism that sees the larger dynamic of world history beyond economic forces (cf. the eonic effect). Historical materialism is a poor theory which would do better as a descriptive framework of observations instead of the ponderous dogma of Marx has mostly been easy target practice for promoters of capitalism…
The most important of Marx’s influences on people working in social sciences is, I think, his economic interpretation of history. This has become so much part of the mainstream that we do no longer associate it with Marx very much. And surely, he was not the only one or even the first to have defined it. But he applied it most consistently and most creatively.

Source: globalinequality: Marx for me (and hopefully for others too)