We posted today a criticism of Sanders’ neutered idea of ‘Our Revolution’, below.
Our perspective can be taken as ‘up in the air’, but it can at least be a reminder to not speak of ‘revolution’ is you mean the opposite. The whole left has been paralyzed in the last generation and we have lost decades to the shallow activism that goes through the motions of protest.
The issue is in any case to set the record straight: modern democracy arises via revolutions in the real sense.
We are waltzing our way to planetary oblivion with no real left to stand up to the thuggery of capitalist fake government
The ‘Last Revolution’ may be an unrealistic projection (but I doubt that) but it can be taken in the sense of virtual revolution and used as a modeling tool in the complexity of social systems. We should be able to review such models in many versions and to be able to see the limits of, for example, the American system as a so-called democracy.
Ironically it is more a critique of Marxism than the bourgeois capitalist state, but it is nonetheless a direct challenge to the frozen and slowly eroding so-called democracies of the capitalist era. The model can help to see beyond the empty mantas of sloganized ‘socialism’ as a cloud of abstraction. Between Marx and the Chinese communists the hopes for socialism seem remote. The modeling tool (the DMNC model) can help to rapidly expose both fake democracies and fake socialism. The Chinese brand is an especially dangerous brand because it ever gets the chance will liquidate all rivals or any attempt to alleviate its Stalinist signature.
You may not agree as to socialism, but at least the model allows an abstract consideration of possibilities.
The issue of socialism is completely scrambled with its Marxist monopoly and yet the two must be independent. In fact, the association with Chinese or even North Korean Stalinism lurks in all discussion, especially for relative outsiders. It is hopeless to try and repair this. The whole legacy of theory is at risk and needs to be left behind. We have shown how easy it is to start over and focus on a practical realization of a ‘new socialism’ or our democratic market neo-communism. This format should be clear, carefully defined and failsafed.
From the new edition: Continue reading “The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures ….//version 4_23_22”
We added two updates to our post on /marxism/world history/eonic model, link below. The question of marxism and world history raises so many issues that the post could go on and on.
We note two issues: the rise of the left in the modern world is itself an eonic effect, which means that Marx/Engels are themselves data in the eonic history or sequence. They appear in fact just outside the modern transition (whose boundary is perhaps fuzzy) in a mixture that remains unclear of ‘system action’ and ‘free action’. The point would seem that democracy and socialism are paired eonic effects, but that socialism arrives a little late, for the obvious reason is that capitalism and the Industrial Revolution are clustered near the ‘divide’. But the issues of socialism appear very early with More (a conservative with however his Utopia) and Thomas Munzer and the early intimations of socialism in the English Civil War. The question of the divide is tricky and I would be wary of the idea before an extensive study of the eonic data in world history. But the point is that a socialist response to capitalism has its own mysterious historical signature, thus with good reason to honor its historical meaning and to also be wary of its possible distortions. More on this later…
The issue of Christianity is super complex and yet in a larger context it makes sense as a continuation of the phenomenon of emergent religions in the Axial Age, itself a part of the eonic sequence. But its actual realization is outside the early transition and its starting point is to say the least obscure. But we can see that even as Mahayana starts to emerge with its theme of the ‘savior religion’ one such appears in concert thousands of miles away in the accident. Coincidence? We must suspect the larger context of the eonic sequence going through its phase of generating religions and Christianity, and then Islam are connected with the later history of the early transitional phase of the remarkable proto-Israelites whose actual history is still barely known to us. A lot more to say here…
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 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.
One must recommend a study of the eonic effect and model and its solution to the challenge of Kant to find/consider a ‘philosophy of history with a cosmopolitan purpose’ through a ‘hidden purpose of nature’ next to the issue of an ‘agreement between politics and nature’.
The texts of Decoding World History and World History and the Eonic Effect are available online (cf. the post Online texts/downloads)
The issue of ‘god’ is a red herring here and in the larger eonic sequence we see the nexus of ‘god/theism’ is itself a stage in the progression of natural epochs. The issue of god is actually easy: we can have directionality in history without recourse to any idea of ‘god’, an idea whose incoherence swamps its actual usage. Kant himself warns against teleological metaphysics as a proof of the existence of god.
The eonic model shows clearly that world history shows directionality and next to that and in tandem a parallel processor that, for example, shows atheist and theist religions emerge in parallel. Directionality suggests teleology which can only be inferred as a hypothesis of history up to our present. Any model must reconcile free agency and a teleological future, not actually hard to do. (there are multiple possibilities: nature can project purpose and its agents can realize that in practice and/or fail to do so, and/or in discrete continuous model of teleology simply deviate against direction into chaos: looking at the unexpected onset of world wars one suspects the last option)
Continue reading “nature, teleology, the eonic model, illusions of theism/atheism…//Habermas on the Kantian Vision of Perpetual Peace “
If the perspective given here is secular humanism then it must be enriched with something deeper. But can the religions provide this? We have solved this issue with our own custom ‘religion’: the original religion of man: his potential for supercharged consciousness or as is sometimes called his ‘self-consciousness’. We discussed this in our section of the ‘virtual church of the Holy Brick’.
It is also true that our macrosystem generates the flow of multiple traditions into the modern secular sphere: the legacies of Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism/Israelitism, and the immense Greek heritage of the early transition. But the modern transition contains a host of riches all ignored by the usual secular humanist.
But the system of modern politics is corrupt and needs men of real awareness and ‘will’, the hidden self of man. It won’t get them in a field of Machiavellian desperation, yet with a figure like Lincoln we see the reality can manifest. This approach is the first and last religion and yet it is beyond religion as such and could never betray the independence of church and state. In any case, we have to take man as we find him and our model is a system of laws. It is the real men versus the rising tide of psychopaths.
Marx was simply wrong here: socialism will not happen in some automatic dynamic of history: it will be the achievement of real men as free agents. Best to wake up and begin the transition because history in some hypostatized sense won’t do it for men.
The modern politician is a kind of prisoner of his own straightjacket and needs the invisible church: the original ape who evolved into ‘real self-consciousness, if he can still be found. Man in civilization is a mechanical monster who has lost his real consciousness.
_________from previous version
I recommend a new kind of left, with or without the eonic model, which borders on a theory of history as opposed to the ‘eonic effect’ (or ‘the mainline periodization of world history….3000 to 600 BCE to 1500) which is an empirical pattern or chronology. This pattern is all you need and shows the way facts and values emerge in history, the reality of free agency, the sources of world religions, democracy, science, philosophy and even modern classical music (and much else). This pattern immediately leads to the eonic model but that can lead to its own confusions. Examine this pattern to see that a ‘science of history’ is not possible at this point in the emergence of science. Zoom in on the eonic effect and you find some mysterious creative force whose character is invisible to us but which defaults to the grab-bag of ‘cosmic fine tuning’. Cosmology hides an evolutionary matrix for planets (my guess) and this contains a pattern of patterns that directs the emergence of life. This is basically a non-theistic design argument. Continue reading “The Last Revolution: some essay notes”
The text here is ‘forever unfinished’ but as such basically sufficient to start. It is sad but true that in a period when fascism seems to wish for a comeback, the left is ‘out in left field’. The right is trying to fill that void, and take over the revolution nexus. The world system, at the risk of Gaian memes, like some roving elephant is big-brained and smart stupid, and both a victim of and in need of human interaction. The mess created by homo sapiens has to be left to same for a fix, a possibly tragic circumstance with poor chances. Where politicians, scientists, leftists, rightists, economists, seem to be stuck in outstanding routines and mind habits the only reserve troops available are amateurs who are beholden to no social group and outsiders to the fixed system where most are socially fixated and subject to immediate cancel culture if they get out of line.
This dire situation has left politicians prisoners of Capital, more or less as depicted by Marx, but the cadre of Marxists suffers many of the same problems.
There are several key issues the left cannot handle:
Darwinism and its social Darwinist ideology.
the JFK and 9/11 conspiracies (we spend little time on theses: you have to do your home work alone here)
and a host of other issues, but the above three are signs that those who critique ideology have succumbed to it.
With Marxists the dead weight of historical materialism lingers ad infinitum. What a useless subject.
We can make the case for socialism in a hundred pages and skip the whole theory windbag routine of Marx.
the fascist creep of covert agencies which are close to control a key monstrosity likely to take society out of range for good.
Beyond that the state of the American political system is dreadful and beyond redemption in its current form.
We have tried to distill Marx into a more usable form, but in a form that is my own, and which I have to vouch for. Hopefully, Marxists will examine the material and learn something although that is doubtful. This book cannot be discussed at Marxmail where you can not criticize Marx. This situation will simply sideline Marxists and wait on the improbable efforts to new attempts by people forced to work alone with no money, association, or social support. Marxism peaked in the Second Intenational and then, especially due to Stalinism, simply faded away. That was a century ago.
The issues here are:
a new approach to world history is like Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires. World history is the graveyard of theories and a ‘science of history’ and that includes Darwinism. If you think you suffer mind control consider the Darwin paradigm: the entire field of scientists and biologists has been confused over a theory with an elementary mistake for about a century.
The simple solution is to drop theories and study chronologies (which hide a strange secret)
dropping the battle of idealism and materialism, one of the most useless confusions created by Marx. The realm of Hegel is not so relevant now and the protest against idealism always missed the point.
some form of practical and sane economy where again theories fail while empirical approaches are viable
once we drop theories can embrace the issue of values in the realm of facts and create a truly humanistic socialism.
the issue of religion is deftly handled by the eonic model and we don’t have get into the theism/atheism rut to do socialism
Have a nice day
A new version, with leaner appendices… I think that unless we can redefine democracy we are apt to lose it–in its current form which is really an oligarchic pseudo-democray, new version sketches a new kind of democracy as ecological socialism. The issue of revolution is simply up in the air, but we must be readyto withstand the counterrevolution from the right on its way.
We are constantly presented with new suggestions about the need for a new kind of society given ecological and climate issues. None of these books have to courage to state that they are impossible to implement without revolution. So we need not apologize for revolutionary issues behind our discussion. Noone can face what their own proposals require…
last version intros: Continue reading “The Last Revolution: Postcapitalist Futures …//ver_4_4_22”