History beyond theory as chronologies of ‘evolutionary’ sequences

decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx: Decoding World History…
Having critiqued historical theory in general, and Marxist historicism in particular, we might consider the eonic model for a moment to see how we might proceed toward a resolution of the dilemma of science and history. What grounds do we have to do this better than Marx and Hegel? Easy, neither had heard of Sumer. Their factual base was very limited, and a tremendous revolution in data has occurred in the last two centuries. It is suddenly clear where we were going wrong, although there is no simple way past chronic confusion. Why? Because the amount of data explodes almost exponentially and we have to read thousands of books, and then thousands more after that. That data is the first step to theory and without it theory is simply imaginary. But a strange thing has happened, we can at least get within ‘judicious guesswork’ range toward what is going on:
First we must get past Darwinism, an unlikely step but essential. The grounds for its rejection are completely clear however. We end with the same problem with evolution that we have with history: we have no theory of evolution, but lots of data about its empirical chronology.
But looking a world history now we have a strong hint: world history is an evolutionary continuation of evolution in deep time.
It is not random evolution in either case.
Historical evolution seems to appear in the simplest and most obvious fashion: a series of directed stages or eras, of which we can see only three, or two and a half: from Egypt/Sumer, classical antiquity, and the rise of the modern.
This system seems to be driven not by evolving civilizations but by a set of transitions inside them. The source of these is not clear but they constitute a direct and intuitive insight into how large systems can ‘evolve’, if we dare use that term, otherwise ‘develop’ would work fine.

That’s it to start. We get a strong hint, but we don’t have enough data even now to complete the analysis. But we suspect what a ‘theory’ about history would involve: a discussion of a system operating in a frequency sequence along with a way to operate beyond sequence in a parallel fashion. It shows directionality, thence we suspect teleology, but that term is unsafe to use without a long discussion, but the point is that development in all cases and here in particular shows design, or directed action. Everything in nature shows design and there is no theological conclusion to that.

We should stop there. We see why historical theory has proven so fruitless, and the way to get beyond that, but only if we can manage huge amounts of data, equally distributed across times and periods of world history.
There appears to be no economic key to this data. Economies appear quite obviously in all civilizations, and while that might well determine many aspects of culture there is no real base/superstructure conclusion we can draw. Our emerging model lacks data even for the Neolithic, what to say for periods before that but we are getting suspicious: the evolution of species probably will resemble our fragment: directed transitions in short bursts over a given range (world history only shows a limited range of ten thousand years since the period just before the Neolithic, and hard data only since ca. 3000 BCE). But this result makes complete sense as far as it goes, except for its strange self-contradiction, in reality a huge plus: operation in sequence and parallel. No theory there, but an intuitive insight into the obvious reason for that: to cover a given ground you can’t do that operating in a single path: you must integrate over multiple regions, to cover a surface.

We struggle with Marx/Hegel on history, but they both echo Kant whose short essay on history grounds the debate. That essay asks us to resolve the challenge of history and we must claim that our eonic fragment is the all important clue and that Hegel and Marx were without sufficient data to escape a huge swamp of confusion over theory, theory still in the far too limited range of (Newtonian) physics, which can’t resolve world history to a causal system of that type. History is an evolutionary system and we don’t know what drives evolution, although we can empirically map its phases as chronology.

The issues of democracy and socialism are easy to fit into this model (not a theory) in the most obvious way: democracy emerges in relation to world history as a breakthrough toward freedom in society, and socialism follows swiftly in its wake as a way to complete democracy which as Marx clearly saw was liable to capitalist penetration.

Hegelian geist and Marxist base/superstructure are theory phantoms. Hegelian geist sure would be handy as a tool in our kit: a X/something/gaseous vertebrate that can act anywhere at any time…Capitalism tends to dominate its superstructure, to be sure, but there is no direct determination and it does not really determine the overall culture.

The eonic effect is a direct glimpse or snapshot still incomplete but it can help us to stabilize thinking beyond the quagmire of theory in simple outlines and chronologies. .

Step one is to get free of Darwinism. The current generations of academic experts is incapable of doing that, so confusion will continue to reign. The whole field has become hopeless idiocy, and in more brands than just the Hegelian or Marxist.

Online texts/downloads

Postcapitalist Futures: The Last Revolution
The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_ver_FNL_4xa_12_18_21

Decoding World History
decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

Descent of Man Revisited
9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)
Two Manifestos
Two Manifestos
Democratic Market Neo-Communism
Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2)
Failure of Darwinism
The_Failure_of_Darwinism_Landon_kindle_version_pdf(1)
Continue reading “Online texts/downloads”

Online texts/downloads

Postcapitalist Futures: The Last Revolution
The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_ver_FNL_4xa_12_18_21

Decoding World History
decoding-world-history-ed-1_6dcdx

Descent of Man Revisited
9780984702909_Descent_of_Man_Revisited(3)
Two Manifestos
Two Manifestos
Democratic Market Neo-Communism
Democratic_Market_Neo_Communism_ver_5(2)
Failure of Darwinism
The_Failure_of_Darwinism_Landon_kindle_version_pdf(1)
Continue reading “Online texts/downloads”

 Marxism failed to produce socialism…end of story…in the end Marxism was the biggest swindle of the working class since capitalism

I haven’t read this book but the issue of Marxism remains problematical. One can admire Marx historically but the world needs a framework that can actually do the job. Marx made a monopoly of his thought in a field with many thinkers, the result was a closed cult stuck forever in apologetics. In a larger sense, the way he cast his theories condemned the socialist idea to a failure of realization. In part the whole effort produced false theories of history and the result was the narrow now dated materialism of his time. The whole debate between idealism and materialism was useless and is not needed for a viable praxis. What a waste of effort. Socialism needs a far larger range of discourse than the obsessive analysis of economic systems. How does that attack on idealism advance socialism? Quantum field theory is now evidently idealist. What are Marxists going to do about that?
The dilemma seems ridiculous now and is doomed to antagonize needlessly a whole sector of the public and turn them into enemies.
The Frankfurt School was no better perhaps, but that is downriver history at this point.
We need something simple, failsafed, with a movement that can create a real postcapitalist economy without destroying civil liberties and able to create an open society, within the limits of ecological disaster.
Monthly Review has concocted a sophistical ecological interpretation in the Marx canon. Disaster strikes. Now ecology will be vitiated by Marx’s bad theories. Ecological socialism should be off limits to Marx idiots. Enough screw ups.
Socialism doesn’t need speculative monstrosities like historical materialism or dialectical materialism. The Marxist corpus has handed its enemies simple keys to its refutation and grounds for dismissing socialism. Marx’s other material is important but hard to extract from the misleading theories. We have suggested a new approach that doesn’t try to create a science of history. Every such attempt has failed and with Marx, the issue of freedom becomes a problem of theory, disastrous.
The effort here uses the material of the ‘eonic effect’, which is simply an empirical chronology of evolutionary civilizations, but with a clear indications of key transitions embedded. That is all we need. And the issue of economics is secondary to that larger process. Economies can dominate but they don’t really determine society which follows a different and far larger process. And after all that effort Marxism can’t even get economics right and muddles the whole subject. We can grant the cogency of Marx’s critique of capitalism. But even there we must move on.
We need a blueprint for a new society that is socialist, democratic, and constitutional, one that can resolve the ‘market’ enigma. The focus on the working class can remain central, but it needs a larger vision of the society that will follow capitalism. And it must be clear in advance lest the inexorable drift into Stalinism recur all over again. Marx’s focus on the working class backfired and gave the world of Leninism/Stalinism grounds for mass murder.
We have time to start over and clearly define the nature of the society that can produce a sane economy, an ecological/socialist perspective and a simple historical saga. And lest we forget, a real socialism should have long since exposed the Darwinist social Darwinism and its capitalist curse. Even that Marxism can’t manage in its sterile conformity to capitalist ideology in its mesmerizing worst.
The_Last_Revolution_Postcapitalist_ Futures_ver_FNL_4xa_12_18_21 shows a one hundred page rewrite for a socialist platform that is clear, simple, and realizable with a sane approach to a new kind of economy where Marxism could produce only the fake results foisted on the working class by the dictatorship of the Marxist bourgeoisie. In the end Marxism was the biggest swindle of the working class since capitalism.

In our approach we use an outline of world history and a sketch of the Axial Age: World history shows directionality and parallelism. That bestows on modernity an immense legacy of Chinese, Indic, Persian/Israelite, Greek/Roman cultures, just for starters. That heritage is filtered through the still more complex heritage of the early modern. To take all of that and strip it bare in a false dilemma of idealism versus materialism produced cultural flatlanders and social anemia.

The DMNC model is just that: a tool to consider socialism in practice. Use it, instead of sterile Marx cultism, deal with the actual cases of history. And critique the idiotic theory of Darwin.

Tony McKenna’s new book is an important defence of Marxism, against thinkers who have confused and obscured its revolutionary core, argues Chris Nineham

Source: Philosophers with no clothes: A Review of ‘The War Against Marxism’ | MR Online

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.
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/edward-hallet-carrs-arguments-in-what-is-history-philosophy-essay.php
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”

Was Marx a hypocrite on the issue of Darwinism….??//Darwinism and Stalinism | Evolution News

Googling ‘natural selection + Stalin’, sure enough, I end up at Evolution News for a useful essay on the connection. But this conservative site would never acknowledge the connection of Darwinism/social Darwinism to capitalism, thus this piece/site while useful is hardly trustworthy.

In any case, our critiques of Marx are from the left and there the connection of Marx and Darwin needs careful examination. I am suspicious that Marx suspected from the first that Darwinism’s natural selection was ideological and then changed his mind, or else dissembled, under the influence of Engels, Marx one of the first to be wary of the rising orthodoxy set into motion by Darwin and his generation and which has produced so many hypocrites who must get on with their academic careers.

But, cf also:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=stalinism+natural+selection

Biographically speaking, reading Darwin’s Origin was seminal in Stalin’s own march toward a godless communism.

Source: Darwinism and Stalinism | Evolution News