Lewontin?? historical materialism and dialectical materialism stand with natural selection as ideological fictions, next to bullshit marxism…time to move on

Lewontin is a complicated figure but in the end, he toe’d the line on Darwinism, though one suspects he knew it was problematical.
Meanwhile, in a third article today from MR, we have a distillation of the entire range of Bullshit Marxism: historical materialism, dialectical materialism, applied to further confusion of an already confused biology stuck forever in the statistical illusion of natural selection. The entire field of biology is incapable of seeing through the confusion of their theory of evolution. A case of ideological hypnosis indeed, and the Marxist realm, great experts on capitalist ideology pass its worst instance with more garbage on histomat and ?? diamat. Evolution is not clarified by dialectical reasoning, at least in the form that Marxists have produced

The core imperative here if for biologists to drop the natural selection theory and drop the claim for a science of evolution based on the ‘mechanism’ of random evolution. Until scientist can be honest with themselves and Marxists extricate from their mythological theory, the issue of biological evolution will remain a total muddle.

Dialectical materialism combines two philosophical traditions: historical materialism formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and dialectics, an idealist philosophy formulated by German philosopher Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel.

Source: Richard Lewontin, dialectical materialism, the relationship between evolutionary biology and Marxism | MR Online

[Video] Is history bunk? Historical materialism on trial

Two ManifestosDecoding World History_ED1

We have repeatedly critiqued historical materialism here from the left, from a socialist point of view. Marx’s views are dated now and don’t serve the left anymore. The term ‘material laws and forces’ is ambiguous and can apply to many perspectives. That apparently means ‘economic’ processes. But world history is much more than the economic.
We have shown how world history shows an evolutionary driver in the strange pattern of eras and epochs visible in the eonic effect. We can call this also ‘material’ in the sense that it is not a theistic or supernatural force. Historical materialism is far too narrow and has turned the question of ‘socialism’ into a reductionist scientism that makes capitalism into an epoch of history and the drive to postcapitalism a future hope.

The left needs a new view of history beyond Darwinism, beyond histomat, beyond the materialism of the early positivists…The Marxist perspective is holding the left back.

Bourgeois, liberal and postmodern historians alike tend to reject the Marxist view that history is driven by material laws and processes. Some also reject the idea of progress, saying this is merely a point of view.

Source: [Video] Is history bunk? Historical materialism on trial

  Using the eonic model instead of brain-dead historical materialism….

Marxism, as we see from the previous post is almost certainly doomed to no second chances. But if it is not it will take a terrible toll on those intelligent enough to see the useless theory baggage, plus a lot of others plus almost everyone.

I have followed these debates over marxist theories, or Marx’s theories for almost five decades and  I am completely sick of them.  Who cares about Marx’s sacred canon of brilliant chestnuts. They will always be refuted and then revived and re-refuted. The left needs to start over with something that has a chance for social transformation and a sane socialism. Marxists say they are revolutionaries but I doubt it. They are content to chew Marxist cud and ruminate over the sacred canon.  It may be that a revolution beyond capitalism is impossible, at least for Marxists.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Our DMNC model shows how you can construct a socialist model in a few pages, without theoretical baggage.  A set of recipes is far better.  With a little care it could be very popular: people would like a socialism that gave them jobs, economic rights, health care, education, democracy subject to some constraints ( an example would be that you can’t try to take over the Commons for  private purposes), legal rights, etc…Bolshevism flunked everyone of the above tests. It is not communism at all. In our approach using the DMNC model you must have four (or more) basics: democracy, markets, planning, a Commons. Or you can’t use the term.

The issue of world history is nonsense in Marxism. A better approach is the eonic model: you may not like the terminology but at its core which you are free to extract it shows only periodization with given empirical foundations, more or less. That periodization shows the ‘evolution’ of civilization we suspect and it embraces all categories. If you disagree that’s fine, but the periodization of the data is all you need. The overall effect is comprehensive: it embraces materialism and idealism, all possible philosophies and their histories, secularism and religion, the histories of religion, the Enlightenment and modernity, etc…That is a far richer base on which to found a socialist open society, with constraiints, but no foundational dogmas like histomat or dialectical materialism.
Try this as an exercise. The grotesque character of Marxist theory (and theory means just that, a lot of things are still useful). Thsi approach isn’t boxed into a corner where dissent becomes a threat to the state.

Source:  The near impossibility of critiquing marxist religious dogma… – 1848+: The End(s) of History

R48G: blogbk: Decoding WH: the left in historical context, the coming crisis

Having rushed to complete ‘Decoding World History’, it is time to consider a new form of the left. So,…

…this is another ‘blog book’ in progress next to “The Anthropocene…” and “Capitalism, Communism…”, etc: A theme of a new left requires a completely new prospectus and yet a useful critique and selection from the Marxist corpus. The left needs a new view of history, evolution, and socialism/capitalism. And it must if not reformist offer in advance a failsafed revolutionary transition. Being a revolutionary isn’t quite the issue: the greater system of history will do the revolution for us, yet we need to be ready
We have already written this book:
Two Manifestos
But we need a more robust version
And the ‘democracy’ in ‘democratic socialism has to robust and protected from the trend toward stalinism that lurks in old fashioned marxism.
The world has a secret wish for socialism but doesn’t trust marxist legacies to deliver.

Marxism has frozen in place and become a kind of religion. At the same time there are no really active groups or movements in the sense that there were in the Second International. But we can’t repeat that era’s material. The Reform/Revolution axis has produced a general stall.
We can easily create a framework that works in both modes .But marxism could be easy to repair

Continue reading “R48G: blogbk: Decoding WH: the left in historical context, the coming crisis”

 From histomat to the eonic effect

I recommend this book to marxists as a substitute for historical materialism. The left won’t get another shot with histomat. Marxism has too many enemies to be tried again. We can easily revise that to a new and better form…A study of the eonic effect, simplified to a simple type of chronicle can serve instead. Don’t try to revolutionize capitalism with a bad theory like histomat. It will eviscerate values, freedom, and produce a mistake like bolshevism…
The eonic effect can be reduced to a simple outline of world history since the Neolithic (throw that in too, but the data is still thin): three eras or intervals, Continue reading ” From histomat to the eonic effect”