Revolution: its appearance in the modern era

One of the mysteries of world history (but clarified by the eonic model) is the sudden appearance of the phenomenon of revolution (there were earlier ‘premonitions’, perhaps, consider the early greek city-states): this striking fact belies the general tendency to conservative obsession that animates culture and politics…
———————-
R48G: modernity, revolution and postcapitalism… Continue reading “Revolution: its appearance in the modern era”

Interpreting modernity

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 postivism, scientism, secular humanism, marxism…
Continue reading “Interpreting modernity”

History and revolution

archive: transitions between civilizations: meta-religions, floating fourth turning points, the future of secularism
June 19th, 2017 ·

Click to access Public

We have suggested that we have to upgrade ‘revolution’ to something more general and comprehensive that includes the fundamentals of the whole of modernity. We can see how the Russian revolution
ended up collapsing the categories of social construction into the brittle ideology of the second Internationale, ultimately the result of the contraction of marxism around nineteenth century positivism. That was an attractive set of tenets for the time but it is not believable to many now, even given the reality of religious reaction attempting to restore itself as socially dominant.

The idea of the ‘floating fourth turning point’ is a ‘curious notion’ attempting to generalize the idea of a revolutionary social transformation and is both practical and preposterous, food for thought…

The question of modernity

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 postivism, 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.

Upgrading marxism, eonic model

R48G: we are out of time to revise marxism but must do so in any case: the eonic model in the background can replace the failed historical materialism.

April 11th, 2017 ·

Click to access Public

R48G: we are out of time to revise marxism but must do so in any case: the eonic model in the background can replace the failed historical materialism.

We have proposed a series of ways we can use the eonic model without getting involved in theory or speculation. At some point we might try a theory, but in the end we are given everything we need to proceed in practical terms without having to fully explain the eonic effect. And if we consider the confusion the Israelites generated with the Old Testament account of the Axial Age we would do well to proceed with caution as to the generalization of the eonic model. We have to face the fact that we will be condemned to make a mess of this data if it becomes the object of unrestrained speculation. But there are a host of simple and practical uses of this kind of model and it can be a way to create a superset of the marxist/socialist legacy. We can do this easily because marxism and socialism are output of this system, late effects near the divide point, and thus have a special status. But they may also be instantly flawed results. We can take marxism as an historical object and move to incorporate it in a larger and more flexible framework of the eonic model which suggests that a postcapitalist outcome, or else a critique and regulation of such, is desperately needed and clearly indicated by the pattern we have discovered.
We are out of time to replace marxism but unless we do we will inherit another flawed version of postcapitalism that is vitiated by inadequate theories. This is very easy to correct but does the left have the will to do this?

Let us proceed as if marxism is obsolete but relatively easy to upgrade with variants of the eonic model, that is, no model at all, but a chronology with structure detectable empirically and with indications as
‘eonic emergents’ (e.g. the innovations of modernity) given as such with or without explanations. In the end we need to stay free of too much theory and the legacy of both historical materialism and neoclassical economics are both liabilities. Our manifestos suggest a form of praxis with a time line model of the eonic effect in the background as a possible tool and most of all a warning that it is very hard to get history straight. Neither Marx nor the economists succeeded there. But the legacy of Marx points to something desperately needed: a challenge to unrestrained capitalism whose effect has suddenly shown itself to be a terminal catastrophe in the onset of climate change…