The issue of progress depends on a model of historical evolution, which doesn’t exist in the current confusions over evolution, next to religious or theological ‘myths’.
One can only recommend a study of the eonic effect and its model to see that the issue of ‘progress’ is bound up in the dynamic in question: a discrete series effect that clearly shows the way ‘progress’ can slow and come to a stop for centuries at a time: witness the rapid advances of early classical antiquity followed by the slow but steady decline in the occident followed by the collapse of Romanism and the medieval interval. Then, just as suddenly what we call modernity takes off in the sixteenth century for a rapid transition to the world we live in now. The model shows: transition as macro effect (1500 to 1800, rougly), divide (1800), change in character of rapid advances as ‘system dynamic’ passes into ‘free action’. There is no guarantee the latter can maintain the mainline of advance or persist with the innovations in place. Note that the issue of democracy is bound up in this dyanamic.as in two cases ‘democracy’ shows a macro boost, in the first case, Greece, damping out and then disappearing for millennia. We can suspect from the example of antiquity with its ‘divide’ ca. 600 BCE that the free agency replacing the macro dynamic is in trouble within two centuries. Sure enough in the modern case two centuries after 1800 in the US at least a kind of chaotification is setting in, eerily on schedule. There is no inevitable fate here: the whole point is to pull oneself together and bring free agency by itself to the task.
It would help to study this overall picture, but in the total confusion created by Darwinism and wrong theories of evolution it is very difficult to prevent academic or scientific institutions from falling into a funk, as they have on evolution. In the current situation there are no real social resources to correct the confusion over history.
A long and thorough study of the ‘eonic model’ along with the rising chorus of dissent on Darwinism, but without the religious propaganda on the right, can reorient thinking and show how the modern ‘progress’ effect emerges in the context of a larger dynamic…Almost all the effects of progress (as a dynamic of advancing civilization) are correlated with the eonic sequence.
This kind of model requires organized study but the current confusions of academia require independent study alone.
It is worth considering this fascinating depiction in terms of the ‘eonic effect’ so-called to see that with one exception all these advances correlate with the modern transition and its direct succession! The exception is Gandhi’s non-violence which is perhaps slightly out of place in the overall pattern. The challenge of non-violence should nonetheless be considered but in the larger picture where key advances provoked a need to fight for the future. Notably the Civil War is a reminder that non-violence was not able to overcome slavery. The overall question of progress is thus ambiguous to some degree. But in any case a look at the eonic sequence shows that almost all the key advances in civilization emerge in the context of the eonic effect. And that as the construct of civilization pulls away from a ‘transition’ period, the risk of things falling apart seems to increase. The period of Archaic to classical Greece like the modern case was cluster of advances, but still inside a ambiguous level of ‘civilization’ and that after two centuries beyond the ‘divide’ point 600 BCE or now 1800 AD the system effect wanes and the overall result can regress. The history of occidental civilization after 400 BCE is downhill for centuries as the era of Rome, empire and high barbarism took hold. In fact, Archaic Greece was still in a mixed state and the Greek Enlightenment so to speak was still somewhat feeble.
We should consider the eonic model because with uncanny recurrence two centuries after 1800 see democracy in trouble again, and we need to consider that the fate of ancient regression need not be ours. Suddenly a battle against democracy has arisen from the right. Right on shcedule.
It is a confusing model of history, no doubt, and not as such a science but a way to assess the meaningful dynamic of historical progression..
Mot of what we have so far is a gift. From now on we are one our own.
The question of non-violence is ambiguous: the facts are clear: the elements of modern progress are not keyed in any clear way with non-violence.
Americans are not longer trustworthy agents of progress. The classic American democracy is already corrupt, and we have to wonder if a system now so spoiled has any future cogency? Look at the record. The US has for decades done everything it can to undermine democracy in Latin America, for example. That bodes ill for the future.
Enormous human betterment has occurred since The Enlightenment, chiefly because crusading liberals overcame conservative resistance, time after time. Modern democracy arose because America’s radical founders renounced the divine right of kings and took up arms against England and George III. They created government of the people, with no aristocracy. Slavery ended because radical abolitionists hammered More
We have stressed the need to recast Marxism given the Bolshevik legacy, and the same must be said of the Chinese brand of Marx and pseudo-communism.
Chinese so-called communism is not an exemplar for a global left.
As we have noted our DMNC, democratic market neo-communism, unites the criteria in one phrase and the fake version of China fails the definition.
The Communist Party of China stands ready to work with Marxist political parties throughout the world to jointly promote human progress and advance the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, Xi Jinping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, said on Thursday.Xi, who is also the Chinese president, made the remark in a congratulatory letter delivered to the virtual World Symposium for Marxist Political Parties hosted by the International Department of the CPC Central Committee.