From histomat to kant’s challenge

https://redfortyeight.com/2019/02/16/engels-marx-pseudo-theory-scientific-versus-utopian-etc-value-free-scientism-on-theory-is-the-fountain-of-marxist-bullshit-and-paralysis-and-got-a-lot-of-psychopaths-into-murderous-power/

There is a much better way to approach the question of history than Marx’s overly ambitious perspective on ‘stages of production’ theory, and its ‘epochs’ in the style of the useless historical materialism: Kant’s challenge in his classic essay on history with its core theme of the progression toward a perfect Civil Constitution. Kant’s essay is not a ‘theory’ but a set of questions and that could set up a very useful analysis of the way to a new form of society, one that could study the blend of democracy and communism, liberalism and socialism. There is no new epoch of history to represent communism but there could be a derivation of a communist/democratic values based on axioms of fairness and equality with the master chord the social evolution of freedom. We can see that democracy has been hijacked by capitalism, and that some form of (neo-) communism is directly relevant to that consideration and the question of free agents experimenting with new forms of civil constitutionalism work far more effectively than the sterile historical materialism. The complete nonsense, perhaps not so evident in the early nineteenth century, of marx’s value free theory as scientism is simply a distraction.

 

Kant and the origin of the ‘end of history’ meme

https://redfortyeight.com/?s=end+of+history

After all the confusion over the term ‘end of history’ it is interesting that Fukuyama has in fact altered his view. The term is too confused for use at this point but at least we should note that the idea of democracy is a better candidate for the usage and that in the context of a challenge to its flaws in practice: Marx was insightful on this and rightly analyzed the way ‘democracy’ was hijacked by capitalism. Obvious stuff, so why is everyone confused?

The idea of the ‘end of history’ works very well if we see it in terms of a oscillating correction along the lines of a socialist blend with democracy. Obvious stuff, so why is everyone confused. The whole idea has  been scrambled by the legacy of bolshevism and the capitalist cooptation of the idea. The insights of Marx produced revulsion with liberalism, and finally democracy, in Lenin et al. and the whole fiasco began

Instead of the term we might consider a convergence that can reconcile democracy and communism in a conclusion to the social evolution of civil society: that was incidentally clearly stated by Kant…who fortunately never used the term that has induced fumble in so many….