The debate over idealism and materialism (which still lingers today, no doubt) is a product of the early nineteenth century when reductionist scientism collided with hegelian idealism (and not only that), the latter a bit extravagant perhaps, and we see the extreme reaction in the generation of marx/engels. But the debate is pointless now, and in an age of quantum mechanics almost ridiculous. The obvious suggestion in general is that both views are right and somehow complementary.
The marxist left is still mired in the morass of that dated argument and needs to move on. Inflicting this one those who wish to move toward socialism is both pointless and highly prejudicial. The prospect of imposing hard-core materialism of the early science era on the whole of thought has alienated so many potential socialists that one has to wonder at the boxed mentation created by the marxist legacy.
Source: The eonic model beyond materialism/idealism – Darwiniana – Darwiniana
In reality the reign of dialectical materialism is over: the doctrine has run its course and is promoted by dogmatic marxists oblivious to its history, flaws and counterproductive effect on the public which is not likely to be converted any time soon. The whole idea of dialectic is a faded luxury for the left and belongs to the post-hegelian era when something of the work of that philosopher was to be rescued. But hegel is not really revlevant for the left now, although as a philosopher his place in history remains secure.
The dialectics of leftists is a phantom of the past and the left need a new set of perspectives. The idea that dialectical materialism is somehow meta-science is almost a superstition at this point…
On the bicentennial of his birth, Karl Marx’s ideas are more relevant than ever. While he is perhaps best known for his writings on economics and history, anyone who wishes to have a fully rounded understanding of his method must strive to master dialectical materialism, which itself resulted from an assiduous study and critique of Hegel.Dialectical materialism is the logic of motion, development, and change. By embracing contradiction instead of trying to write it out of reality, dialectics allows Marxists to approach processes as they really are, not as we would like them to be. In this way we can understand and explain the essential class interests at stake in our fight against capitalist exploitation and oppression.At every decisive turning point in history, scientific socialists must go back to basics. Marxist theory represents the synthesized experience, historical memory, and guide to action of the working class. The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism aims to arm the new generation of revolutionary socialists with these essential ideas.
Source: The Revolutionary Philosophy of Marxism – Marxist Books
To claim that a corrupted capitalism-dominated pseudo-democracy can represent the ‘end of history’ is an ironic self-refutation of the curiously mutating meme that is (supposedly) fielded from hegel…
R48G: the irony that the ‘end of history’ argument undermines the status of american pseudo- democracy: Continue reading “Pseudo-democracy and the ‘end of history’?”
The ‘end of history’ argument has turned out to be a ‘gyp’: neither the left nor the right can seem to provide anything for the future. The left chants the socialism mantra but has no real conception of how to realize that in practice. At least the original form of the argument was a leftist one until it was egregiously ripped off from the right.
The sad reality is that noone can define a future that really works as the entrapment in capitalism turns rancid/morbid/fatal… Continue reading “Capitalism and entrapment: the ‘end of history’ gyp”
The left needs to re-examine the early modern and especially to consider the confusion created in the wake of hegel. How to consider the latter is very tricky, but the rigid division of materialism and idealism that arose in reaction to his generation has proven a curse of barrenness and a slavery to scientism and reductionist fundamentalism. Continue reading ” Idealism cast as the villain?”
The strangest part of the ‘end of history’ confusion is that it points to something real but in a form that has suffered hopeless confusion of terms. From garbled hegel to leftist then rightist meme juggling the crypto-teleological term that came into being has courted pseudo-science, ideological tug of war, and neo-liberal apotheosis. Continue reading “Kant, origins of ‘end of history’ meme, and the place of free agency”
R48G: the absurdity of
May 9th, 2017 ·
We have two clear lines of objection to Fukuyama’s argument: we don’t need Hegel, historical materialism, as the ‘motor of historial synthesis’: our study of the eonic effect shows something else driving history. One can object to that but the material is clearly able to expose techo-economic thinking as an inadequate explanation.
The second, if you
don’t like the eonic effect, is that it is unreasonable to
reject any challenge to
This is the claim that any modifications to free markets is against the ‘end of
history’ argument (which has
no basis either in Hegel or
anything else, put poppycock).
If you look at our Democratic Market Neo-Communism you can see that liberal market capitalism has been remorphed
one to one with alternations that work just as well as those of
straight market capitalism.
In effect, Fukuyama
is arguing that the injustices of
markets can’t be altered, a
gross and nauseating propaganda.
argument only worked for
about five minutes after 1989. The whole ‘end of
history’ is neo-con propaganda, although we might realize that historical materialism doesn’t work either.