Falsifying historical materialism

One has to wonder, why did Marx base his work on this idea. It is abstruse, hard to reify and probably wrong. The specific implication that in fact productive forces drive history is demonstrably wrong. And ‘materialism’ is hardly defined in economic terms. There are many forms of materialism, even religious versions, such as the classic Samkhya. Materialism is a bit shaky now in the era of quantum sciences, viz. quantum field theory.
We have looked at the eonic effect: it hardly proves that ideas drive history but it does show that ideas are crucial in the development of history. The eonic model shows the way religions, art, politics are driven by maacro forces of an evolutionary nature, although it is very hard to fully develop the argument because the mechanisms of evolution are not visible to the naked eye. Marxists have devoted endless energy to trying to vindicate Marx, in vain. They would do better to simply start over and stop blocking socialist evolution with their obsessive errors. The eonic model falsifies historical materialism, and it is equally different on ‘evolution’ from Darwinism
The endless and dreary repetition over and over again of Marx’s confusions has crippled the left.

Marx’s theory is “materialist” in a very specific sense. Marx didn’t just reject the notion that the ideas in people’s heads are the primary driver of history. He didn’t even simply emphasize that humans are driven by material needs. He thought the capacity of any given society to meet those needs (its “forces of production”) and the way it organized itself to do so (its “relations of production”) were the primary factors that explained why and how different forms of society rose, fell, and replaced each other in different historical epochs.

from yesterday:

futile efforts to revive the dead horse of Marxism…//If You Want to Understand Marxism, Read G. A. Cohen
Bringing in Cohen is a clever strategy, in vain, I fear. I have repeatedly suggested a look at The Last Revolution to Jacobin, to no avail. I have been canceled and won’t get a hearing. Lots of other places to get such a hearing. Clearly however, as I suspect, the ranks of Marxism are becoming aware of my critique. But does Jacobin seriously think that Cohen, analytical Marxism and/or the Western Marxists, despite impressive and intelligent work can really salvage Marxism as a theory of history? We are running out of time, we need a minimal package to construct socialism and postcapitalism. Surprisingly Marx eliminated himself and his many followers from being able to do that. Continue reading “Falsifying historical materialism”

Edward Said’s Orientalism and Its Afterlives

It is important to see the implications of Said’s perspective despite its flaws and it might be of interest to consider the issue in terms of the ‘eonic model’ and the way it points to the ‘mechanism’ of the evolution of civilizations: transition and oikoumene/diffusion. The sudden advance of given regions must generate a diffusion field to make real the globalization of advances. But this creates a problem if the distinction of ‘system action’ and ‘free agency’ is left to do all this in ‘best of luck’ fashion. Clearly, the directionality of the macro process will suddenly wane and leave the realization to free agents who are to a high probability at best imperial and at worst pirates. One after another we see the transition regions devolve in their wake to imperialism, colonialism and economic domination via capitalism. The eonic sequence tacitly projects a high ethical standard but provides no action to realize or enforce that. The result is that the evolution of civilization is mostly a botch as everything falls into the hands of psychopaths. After all we can see the problem already in the case of the (originally) underdog Israelites in relation to dominant era of Egypt, etc… And the expansion of Islam was no picnic in the outcome of jihad via plunder. In almost every case the advances in evolutionary civilization have devolved into dangerous forms of mayhem and domination. Athenian democracy disappears and the era of Alexander appears.
It is essential to consider Said’s perspective in order to at least hope to refine ‘modernism’ and its diffusion fields. The modern transition, orientalism or not, has in two centuries transformed the planet with a first: globally integrating cultures in the context of ‘modernity’, a term requiring a vast expansion. By and large, the result has been an enthusiastic embrace of the elements of the modern diffusion field globally even as the imperial aspect falls away sooner or later: note that each phase of the modern transition has had the same problem of imperialism: Germany, Holland, England, France and Spain: in each case the imperialist factions and their colonialism has fallen away. The case of the US is especially ambiguous: it was never part of the modern transition until the very end ca. 1800 when it suddenly became the zone for a democratic experiment which sadly emerged in a field of utter ruffians who have wrecked the whole thing with indigenous genocide and in the last generation the utter mayhem inflicted on the Middle East as apparently intentional state destruction and genocide of Islamic nations egged on by the zionist mafia. The issues of Orientalism seem if anything a quaint understatement of the dreadful reality. And now, finally, in this generation, we see the beginning of the waning of the US version of ‘colonialism’, never quite that, rather a capitalist/imperialist/fascist-genocidal menace. We will soon see the Chinese version of Occidentalism, no doubt, along with the retarded pre-modern Russian zone of …enough. Complete the sentence if you must. But for Americans it is a sad commentary that the very generation of Said’s work and influence has seen an horrific of militarism for profit, and capitalist extremes in the deliberate mayhem inflicted on the Middle East.

Edward Said’s Orientalism instilled an anti-imperial sensibility into an entire generation of Western scholars. But even while it castigated the imperial project, its actual analysis didn’t give us the intellectual resources to overturn it.

Source: Edward Said’s Orientalism and Its Afterlives

What Is History? The eonic model changes our views of history completely

Carr’s old chestnut classic can loan us its title for a quick redirection to the eonic effect, and its own question, what is history? In fact, we can examine the eonic effect and still not fully answer. But contemporary culture is so stuck on Darwinism that it is almost hopeless to break through the tenacity of social brainwashing. Even marxists are frozen and they are supposed to be experts in theory and ideology.
I would be happy for a citation and critique as above at the link, but my take on world history is stuck/censored by the current cancel culture of the professoriat, so-called, a gang of idiots non-pareil that has allowed Darwinism to dominate the universities for over a century of muddle. Warning then: professors are assembly line university idiots/zombies programmed to uphold social darwinism. Thanks, guys. (the attempt at postmodern critique is interesting enough, but postmodern periodization is an illusion, even if its critiques might be relevant enough.)

The eonic model suffers some of the criticism laid out for Carr. Continue reading “What Is History? The eonic model changes our views of history completely”

 A warning to take the eonic effect into account…

Scholars simply won’t listen to an outsider, and if Darwinism is challenged they will take ‘not listening’ to a whole new level. But for me it is sad, and almost unnerving to see the life work of so many scholars base itself on false premises. The evolution of man as indicated in the eonic model forces the realization that ‘evolution’ in the emergence of man coordinates a huge spectrum, including art, and with the rise of civilization we see in a snapshot the way that ‘evolution’ in a new but related sense drives the emergence of civilization. To discuss the evolution of ‘virtue’ and morality unaware of the eonic models discussion of the emergence of religion in the Axial interval, viz. Israelitism, and Buddhism, is to get mostly everything wrong. But much of the research cited remains of great interest, and hopefully a new edition of DCDX can cite some of the new thinking.

The eonic model can clarify this debate but at the same one has to go through a large amount of new research on the issues of human evolution, even given the inability of established scholars to ge…

Source: ‘The Dawn of Everything’ gets human history wrong | Climate & Capitalism – 1848+: The End(s) of History

 Democracy and the eonic series

We have made the argument about democracy and the eonic series many times here, but it doesn’t sink in. It doesn’t make any sense out of context. It might be useful to consider that it resembles the ‘end of history’ meme but without the muddle of that debate which used Hegel to make an argument about teleological history. I would leave Hegel out here but consider that democracy has a strange historical directionality. The same can be said of socialism, and in fact the ‘end of history’ theme was at first a leftist argument, connected to Marx. We can’t resolve that here save to note that it might help to see how the eonic model automatically picks up the ‘end of history’ argument in its cow catcher. But it also shows that multiple potential outcomes can appear shotgun style in parallel. They are lookalikes that need to be mutually adjusted, democratic socialism is one example, already successful as such a concept. The mystery is subject to theological confusions, that Hegel tried to overcome by embracing them. But the larger model of the eonic series is not a theistic historicism nor does it profit from the concept of ‘geist’. The larger eonic model can free discussion from those confusions.

The issue of democracy has an even more elusive aspect as reflected in the model of the eonic effect. It will barely suffice to point it out in the context of current confusions over democracy but it is a final source of insight, if the study of the eonic model becomes more general. Short of that it is useful to generate interest in the subject by pointing to the strange connection to the eonic model: here’s the strangest mystery of all with respect to the emergence of democracy: it is directly correlated with the divide era of the eonic sequence, very weakly, but still successfully, with the period 600 BCE in Greece: the appearance of Solon, and 1800 in the modern case, or better the generation around 1800 in the European, then American sector.

In the context of the model the odds against this being chance are hard to compute, but  very large. A hint is given: a larger (macro) system is trying ot induce democracy into a barbarous system that can barely manage rational government. It is clear in the Greek case: peoples stuck in slavery began to conceive freedom, and in close concert with the eonic series. It cannot induce freedom by acting against freedom, but it can try, and at least seed the idea. We should note that the British warned of the danger, hardly saints themselves, and counseled against independence. And the issue of slavery was a further contradiction. Sure enough the so-called demoracy became a strange experiment in democratic induction on peoples who were still stuck in slavery and prone to the genocide of the Indians. The tide of abolition however was also an aspect of the modern transitions, again not chance and the experiment, a failure from the start, buys time and then most strangely we see the Civil War. We could go on at length here but the record of American ‘democracy’ was at risk throughout of one screwup after another, and the record of imperialism, capitalist excess, etc, created just the kind of confusion the socialists always saw coming.

We should note that America (and Russia, who both come to dominate world history) is just barely a part of the eonic sequence but becomes a theatre for a democracy experiment. Modern history ends up the tale of two barbarous sectors, America and Russia. The rich legacy of the British and other transitions are not replicated in the American sphere. It will suffer from shallowness, as is obvious from the strange success of success and tragedy that follows. But there is the excellent chance that the US as a sudden extension of the British transition will pick all that up, and it does, but… That is because the Americas were a theatre or diffusion field for the modern transition and the early legacy of the English Civil War had initiated a democratic strain in the Brits’ noosphere (?something like that). But the core eonic transition while generating proto-democracy moves to the fringe of the British transition in the vacuum of the Americas where such an experiment can arise with less opposition than in the core zone of the modern transition (Germany, Holland, England, France, Spain). But it risks sinking into barbarism in its wilder aspect and its collision with indigenous peoples.

Why would this happen near a divide and what does it mean? The data as we see it suggests that democracy appears twice as ‘system action’ or induction and is realized a free action JUST AFTER THE DIVIDE as induction ceases. It might help to study the eonic model to see the point here. But it is not intuitive so far with a larger public. But the scary point is that a system where ‘democracy’ is system-induced has sacrificed the freedom to create democracy for the freedom to carry it out, and will be carried as free agency which will not fully comprehend the ambiguity of freedom and its realization in history. We should note that the Athenian example (next to many republican parallels in the Greek city-states) cannot escape chaotification and wanes by 400 BCE, although something remains until the era of Alexander. In the modern case, we can see most eerily that within two centuries into our own generation the democratic field is strong and then suddenly begins to wane. Since we are in the middle of that even now we are not condemned to any fatalism, but the correlation is ominous and a warning to batten down the hatches. The problem is that democracy was never correctly realized and is hard to repair or prolong without a new and stronger definition.
Postcapitalist_ Futures_Last_Revolution_ver_fnal_1a_12_10_21

The question of democracy is confused by its own lack of precise definition. The problem is reflected from the start in the attempts to define the then vague term ‘democracy’ inherited …

Source: Joe Biden Has No Business Lecturing the Rest of the World on “Democracy” – 1848+: The End(s) of History