The idea of the evolution of freedom is a nest of contradictions of the Kantian type and routs almost all versions of an idea of evolution. But the idea is actually critical for any true theory of evolution. As we look back on history we see it indirectly and suspect the idea is not mystical evolutionism.
World history, freedom in the state and freedom from the state
February 28th, 2018
The legacy of Marxism contains a rich load of potential tools but is marred by the confusions of theory that beset Marx (and Engels) and rendered their work overall a contradictory package in practice. Instead of historical materialism and/or dialectical materialism, we have suggested a simple historical outline with modernity a sort of epochal transition (starting in the early modern) as the crucial focus. The progression of economic epochs in Marx is simply not correct as a long-range perspective will clearly show: capitalism is gestating from the Neolithic and feudalism in many forms is recurrent. The Middle Ages isn’t really feudal, as such. So the whole scheme is a puzzle until we recast the whole problem.
We can inject our eonic model, but that might be controversial so we can simply map out a set of epochal intervals obvious to the naked eye.
(the preface of the paleo/neolithic)
the phase of onset of the State, Sumer, Egypt and era from ca. 3000 BCE onwards
the so-called Axial Age and its succession as an epoch, and this enforces a discipline of balanced study from Greece/Rome across Eurasia to China
the rise of the modern world from fifteenth to the eighteenth century…
We can try to interpret this pattern, or we can just take it empirically as a kind of punctuated series, wary of theories save as a descriptive category of development or civilizational evolution (wary of the term evolution, it just means what it means in conversational lingo).
In this context we can analyze class, economy, and technology empirically as histories or chronicles. Note that we add technological history as separate category: the onset of capitalism is often confused with the industrial (technological) revolution of the eighteenth century.
We can certainly focus on a working-class analysis of these various eras and/or look at the whole in terms of multiple classes and posit the motion toward a universal class. But let us note that a working class dynamic is going to be incomplete: there is a double motion, the onset of the State as one kind of freedom and then almost dialectically a motion against the state as the birth of democracy. We note the resemblance of the democratic and the working class strain.
We should note that ‘feudalism’ is really an ideological version of the idea of caste that
so dominates India: the Aryan cast logic is simply a variant in the occidental middle ages. We can see then that overall the sudden amplification of capitalism in the industrial revolution period looks like the onset of a new epoch of economy, but surely to a close look we can see that that is not true.
We can resolve the question by seeing that democracy can’t be fully realized or the State truly fulfilled until we unite the working class, or better the gestating universal class into a common realization, viz. with a communist democracy…
We have both availed ourselves of a theme of proletarian ideology, Marxism, and escaped its rigid formulation which can obstruct clarity.
Let us note then that capitalism is developing at all stages of history even if it suddenly becomes a dominant factor in modernity. We can see that capitalism as economy and technology almost because an independent factor in history, but that’s not the same as saying it is a stage of history.
Let us recommend a closer look at the eonic model but without having to take it in full as another theory. But, all in all, we can see that an empirical approach can free us from the confusions that haunt marxist ideas about inexorable stages of economic history.
The working class formulation is so classic and to the point we can work with that, but the idea of a ‘universal class’, which is really a variant of the individuality of all men given by the great religions, can be an equally valuable approach. We can easily change
gears between the two concepts, also mindful that the class interests of the working class can’t be made an absolute: the nature of the state and its evolution into democracy and two separate issues, reaching their conclusion in their unification.
Another issue is the question of slavery: it is increasingly clear, although not certain, that slavery is never any kind of necessary stage in history, because it didn’t really exist at the birth of agriculture or the State: it appears to be a disease of civilization that grows progressively worse in the era after the rise of State Sumer/Egypt. Thus, it appears that
the Pyramids, at first, were constructed by free labor as a sort of military draft.
The dread disease of slavery is really related to emerging capitalism in an obvious sense, and overtakes the State in the later phase of our first epoch???
Whatever the case we cannot ascribe any necessary status to slavery: if the great pyramids were initiated by free labor the arguments for the inevitability of slavery as a stage (suspiciously lurking in Marx) collapse at once.
archive: The question of modernity
December 11th, 2017 •
The need for a larger perspective….of modernity
January 8th, 2015 •
The neo-communist left has to have a far larger universe than that created by historical materialism: it needs a global anthropology that can talk to a generalized modernity/secularism. But what is that? The nineteenth century created a reduced subset to all that in the forms of positivism, scientism, secular humanism, Marxism…
Marxism needs to be rescued from this situation: the situation is not hard to solve: we use the ‘macro model’ (or you can skip that) to look at what we call the ‘modern transition’ from 1500 to 1800 (approx/) at which point the new era of modernity begins. The early modern clearly shows at once what happened: Marxism jumped on a yippee surfboard in the Feuerbachian reaction to Hegel and downshifted into a very limited perspective. The overall idea was brilliant, however, and can easily be recast to include 1. a larger whole than Hegel and his critics 2. the ‘dialectic’ of the modern transitional with counterpoints in the Reformation/Rise of Science, revolutions from Munzer to the French Revolution. 3 the rise of liberalism, ideas of freedom, philosophies of freedom, 4. German Classical Philosophy….
In general the marxist perspective can’t even handle the Enlightenment very well. The so- called ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ started chasing a good idea for a critique and
ended up in the hopeless muddle of the postmodern critique of modernity.
In the larger view the issue of communism is 1. a response to the need for a post- transitional ‘revolution’ against capitalism, 2. the need to reconstruct modernity in this new context, requiring versions of the Reformation, Scientific Revolution, rise of liberalism/communism (socialism), industrialization and its technologies and globalization, 3.some reckoning with the complex chords generated: e.g. the Romantic Reaction, the export of buddhism and figures like Schopenhauer, etc…
You can see that the current tactic of trying to use Marxism to challenge all other aspects of modernity is ill-conceived and the route to sterility and scientism made worse.
Last and First Men creates an historical context for not only the larger perspective of modernity, but a still larger context of world history. This approach requires looking at a whole complex (dialectic) of counterpoints, contraries and pairs of opposites.
In specific terms, the new left here needs to study the reality of global religion, from Xtianity/Islam to buddhism, and Confucianism Taoism, etc.. It needs to have a larger philosophy that can work with materialism and idealism in a larger context than simple collision. Etc…
This problem of selecting a small subset of modernity to define secularism haunts the science world whose cadre of poorly educated scientism troopers has created, like Marxism, an extremely narrow subset of modernity that beggars the whole transition to a new era.
It would be nice to ditch the old Marxism and create a larger version that is tuned to the greater whole of modernity, and thence antiquity.
The critique of liberalism is all important but at the same time the world of the Economist doesn’t really define or exhaust the category. If liberalism defined and liberalism in practice diverge then we must study the history there with care and not confuse the two, even if the ‘liberals in practice’ do confuse the two.
Lenin hated liberalism, not far behind Marx, but that was another trap. In any case the left has to move to both critique and transcend liberalism. But do they have any prospect of doing so?
This is a fascinating article but the larger history of liberalism, and simple democracy is needed. The left will move to create something worse with the incomplete models of marxism.
Just a caution near an interesting idea for a book on liberalism…
Liberalism is often presented as a loose set of principles like reason, freedom, and the rule of law. But over almost two centuries, the Economist has provided a window into the dominant strand of liberalism in action — with imperial conquest and undemocratic regimes defended in the name of upholding “free trade.”
Marx worked in the era of the rise of positivism and the result is a strange ambivalence embedded in marxism: a fanatic reductionism next to a theme of freedom in history. The results have never worked right….
Marxists should study the eonic model: Marx creates a model of stages of economic history with communism at the end. We have critiqued this scheme but we can use it as an example of a system/model …
The idea of the ‘evolution of freedom’ is easy to define in the abstract but causes ‘computer crash’ with reductionist ‘scientific’ efforts to explain it.
We would need observational evidence here, hard to come by, but the basic idea is key to the evolution of ‘animals’….
The question of evolution in our eonic model is based on world history which give us direct access to the visible (if any) process of the evolutionary. The question arises, how can history b…
The issue of elegant theories impinges on the question of history and we can see that much of human history is a portrait of human ugliness and dysethical action. And Marx had to take it upon himse…
R48G: end of history or end of eonic sequence? man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination man’s true freedom can’t emerge under domination by the market… March 29th, 2017 This version of the …
Note that the term ‘evolution of freedom’ is really a metaphysical concept and that standard science will simply exclude the term/concept. A true theory of evolution might also dispense with the term but the net equivalent in practice is essential (as Hegel seems to have understood, to say nothing of Kant)
The question of evolution has been the object of a very elusive ideological manipulation and the left has more or less been complicit in that.
The time has long since arrived to dismiss darwinism an make good on the pledge to examine ‘theory and ideology’, in the case of darwinism a fairly obvious instance.
The idea of ‘freedom evolving’ shows just how difficult a real theory of evolution must be and the way metaphysical issues enter to confound ‘science as we know it’.
The question of evolution in our eonic model is based on world history which give us direct access to the visible (if any) process of the evolutionary. The question arises, how can history be ‘evolution’…