The Last Revolution

The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver2_xzda_abx
This is a new version of The Last Revolution, still unfinished.
But the idea is for a short work.
The critique of Marxism is controversial for some leftists, but in fact, this treatment allows the key issues of Marx to come to the fore in a simpler and more practical form. We make the point that a new left platform can be produced very quickly, as here. We are running out of time: if Marxism is problematical we have to act fast to restart a new platform. Marx’s historical moment as history and core heroic saga is all we need.
Continue reading “The Last Revolution”

The Last Revolution ver1a_abx

The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver1a_abx

This is a new version of The Last Revolution, still unfinished.
But the idea is for a short work.
The critique of Marxism is controversial for some leftists, but in fact, this treatment allows the key issues of Marx to come to the fore in a simpler and more practical form. We make the point that a new left platform can be produced very quickly, as here. We are running out of time: if Marxism is problematical we have to act fast to restart a new platform. Marx’s historical moment as history and core heroic saga is all we need.
Continue reading “The Last Revolution ver1a_abx”

Archived: email re: marxmail, the ‘eonic effect’ defined in one paragraph

Re: Marx beyond theories of history…neo-communism, and the context of evolutionary civilization
From: Nemonemini
To: xyz/j.x
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2021 11:50 am
Thanks for reply. The issue of Darwinism is clear: as Fred Hoyle noted long ago, natural selection can’t even get one peptide right. The so-called scientific community has been stuck in statistical confusion for going on two centuries. I don’t have to debate this anymore. Do the math, first. Shoulders of giants? Really? I have a lot of material on the issue. Online, free of charge.

Postcapitalist futures: online texts

The real problem is how so many scientists could support Darwinism given the obvious difficulty. Hey, probably the problem is ideology (as Marx suspected at the start before he changed his mind and started lying about it) and is good backup for capitalist market ideology.
If socialists can’t figure this out, they are fired, time for socialism 2.0. Ditto for marxmail subscribers.
I do not talk of eons or the supra-historical. I do use the term ‘eonic’ carefully defined as intervals of 2400 yeas as historical data between 3000 BCE and 1800 AD. This EMPIRICAL data is very provocative and suggests a frequency hypothesis. But no theory of history as science exists yet, for reasons the ‘eonic data or model’ makes clear. Hypothesis. More data is needed. But the probability here is high enough to merit close analysis. The term ‘eonic’ was perhaps a bad choice, but it is useful as a ratcatcher or flypaper for the dozens of bad cyclical theories of history. The data shows why people have been so confused here for so long. The idea is hardly any worse than Marx’s (cyclical) theory of ‘epoch’ and ‘stages of production’, feudalism, capitalism, communism…another bad cyclical theory. The ‘eonic effect’ is not a theory but a data set that looks like an evolutionary frequency (like punctuated equilibrium staggered in a series) of some kind, and may give a glimpse of (organismic, not civilizational) the ‘evolution’ of organisms (the two evidently related). Continue reading “Archived: email re: marxmail, the ‘eonic effect’ defined in one paragraph”

The eonic effect versus marxist economic historicism

The last series of posts of today show the difficulty of studying world history, evolution, and much else. The results are immensely complex and prone to disintegration with the wrong kind of applied theory. The Marxist project in this context is unrealistic and too reductionist. We see that world history is too complex for economic explanations. The left needs to beware then, as the example of Bolshevism makes obvious, applying too narrow analyses to cultural totalities. This is said as a kind of warning of what is already the case: Marxists are wasting their breath because the general culture will not buy into a Marxist cultural system.
But this is not a rejection of socialism or communism. These are more than adapted already to world historical evolution and emerge in the contextg of the modern transition and the appearanceof capitalism. Marxist confused everyone by th eway Marx took control of the ideas of the early socialists and drove them out of business with his own flawed formulation. There is much of value in Marx, but a viable socialism (neo-communism) needs a new framework. We have provide an example very easily. Marxists are closed in a cult and will doubtfully listen here. The spell of Marx is too great. But his overall corpus of theory is mediocre and leads to wrong results, if not Stalinism.

 Design in nature, for ‘atheists’

We addressed this post yesterday but can make some additional points: the claims for design in the universe make sense but then the conclusion is that this is evidence of mind in nature. The problem here is that you still have to show what ‘mind’ is and probably without reference to the human mind. If mind is behind evolution, what is behind mind? The antinomial regress is not an answer. The feeling about design is real, and shows that the universe shows non-random processes.
Let’s play a trick here, honest and out front: the eonic effect (Cf. Decoding World History) shows design in history, which sometimes seems intelligent indeed. But the design is not the same as the design proposed by Jews and Christians as in the Old Testament. How do we distinguish different forms of design? In fact, the eonic effect shows massive evidence for its own issue of ‘design’, and it effectively replaces the monotheistic confusion over design. It is not yet science, to be sure, but it is empirical.
At this point, the ID group becomes dangerous because they are right-wing Trump fans hoping to use design arguments to establish a theological regressive theocracy. Fair, unfair? In any case, they are not open to free discussion. In the last twenty years since WHEE showed design in nature by an ‘atheist’, I have never been able to exchange an email, even once with the gang there. I can’t post comments, and in the end their tactics are not science but incipient theology based not on science but on design propaganda for social control, etc, etc…

Source: A Covert Nod to Meyer’s “God Hypothesis”? | Evolution News

[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

Legal Definition Unveiled to Put Ecocide on Par With War Crimes

Democratic market neo-communism as ecological socialism: beyond theory madness to a recipe for a new system describable in one paragraph

Two Manifestos
A quick sketch of a new approach to socialism/communism plus an outline of history might help to reorient thinking on the left. Although Marx’s theories of history don’t work he had a lot of other insights that might be of value. But the issue of history (and evolution) is too vast and complex for a simple theory. To claim that civilization operates on economic categories and passed through a fixed series of economic epochs makes very little sense. Capitalism was born long before feudalism and was gestating in ancient Greece (which has a lot of records: the same must have been happening in a lot of places) and probably in Neolithic/Sumerian times. Capitalism is thus a process stretching across history inside or outside of the various civilizations as they emerged.
Instead of the idea of economic epochs we might look at empirical world history, we see a natural periodization or series of epochs given empirically:

the Neolithic from 10/8000 BCE to the take-off of Sumer and Egypt ca. 3000 BCE (with long build-ups in the Neolithic): these two surge ahead and define a whole era of successor civilizations across Eurasia, Africa, and probably the New World (a controversial issue). A whole series of civilizations arise in their wake.
Then in the first millennium starting from ca. 900 to 600 BCE the Eurasian world undergoes a stunning set of take-offs across Eurasia in Greece, the Near East plus the Persian realm of Zoroastrianism (in a more complex nexus), India, and China. These entities define a whole series of civilizations across Eurasia and define a whole era of multiple worlds in parallel, and diffusion across the world. Note: the world system blends two proto-religions at the start. The original monotheism was supposed to be we suspect a combined Semitic/Indoeuropean blend, but that didn’t quite happen/
Then there is in the accident of a long decline and finally, the medieval period, which indeed had aspects of feudalism. But the latter was never a defining system but an ad hoc mainly European system. This medieval period confuses us because it the slow decline from the take-off of the earlier period, e.g. Greece…This remarkable phenomenon can be partially understood as the dissipation of the energy of the earlier creative period.
Then around 1500 up to 1800 we see a sudden and explosive take-off into the period we call ‘modernity’, a useful term without Eurocentric implications, which spread globally in record time to the point that a first world civilization emerged (with a process accelerator in capitalism). The mystery of the European take off (Europe was backward for millennia until it entered the (Greco-)Roman diffusion field. In the eonic model this factor is analyzed with a discussion of a ‘frontier effect’, but we can simply take the rise of the modern as a kind of transition to a new era followed by its extension to a global field. Note that Japan entered this modern field and developed faster than most of Europe, a sign that we are right in seeing modernity as a global phenomenon jumpstarted from a core set of zones in Western Europe, and England. Such statements are empirical, more or less and by pass the confusion of economic analysis. Capitalism is as ancient as civilization itself, but it does somehow amplify around the period of the Industrial Revolution. Note that socialism and democracy appear in parallel and then become chaotic oppositions where it makes better sense to see that socialist can help to create a more robust democracy.
Note that this sketch does better justice to the facts of world history, without a theory, and analyzes all the immense range of factors required for analysis: culture basics, politics, art, literature, philosophy, religion, and economic systems. To reduce that complexity to economics was a considerable blunder. To make matter worse everything else was dismissed as ‘idealist’.
Many have noted, shaking their heads, that Marxist is one of the worst ways of analyzing history.

Note that our three eras (epoch if you like) are probably preceded by others in the Neolithic, and that the last, the modern, is still underway, or so we suspect.
This situation requires a new kind of model. We can’t apply causal theories to a system still incomplete that we ourselves are realizing in our present. The so-called eonic model deals with this situation. Everyone from Karl Popper to Isaiah Berlin criticized Marx’s theories for applying causal predictions to a future of free agents.


Here we can insert a quick sketch of a socialist system (we don’t distinguish socialism from communism at such as did Marx: one can alternately call socialism a stage leading to communism but that complicates the simplicity of the whole issue.
Our idea is that to refer to ‘socialism’ alone invites delusive interpretation of an undefined term. If we get more specific we can clarify the historical entity envisioned:
‘democratic market neo-communism’ suddenly puts into a four or five-term system: we must construct ‘democracy’, and economy of socialist markets, AND planning, a ‘communism’ based on expropriation of capital, but buffered in a Commons instead of ‘state capitalism’ or state ownership. This system must thus be a democracy with economic, political and social rights and liberties, a constrained set of markets based on ‘licensed’ resources from a Commons, along with a large-scale structure of political, ecological, and economic factors bound in a set of checks and balances. This system instead of using imaginary categories which can prove deceptive starts with a liberal system and remorphs it into (socialist) neo-communist system. Note the point; socialism has to start with a democratic/liberal system and remorph that.

This system (which needs more detail, no doubt) needs no theory of history, beyond noting the issue of modernity, can be described in one paragraph (but would need a lot of new legal and constitutional specifics), and has no mystical unknowns but no doubt rough points of realization. But you could construct such a system not from theory but as a recipe of a liberal (democratic) system remorphed in simple stages.
This approach cuts through the incomprehensible jargon of the Marxists and we know that it can (probably) work because we know its relatives work. Note that however hard in practice you can take a liberal system and make one change: expropriate capital to a Commons. The other changes follow naturally.

Note that this approach has a built-in failsafe: a system of Bolshevism flunks the definition and is in exile from the category of ‘communism’ which is an abuse of terminology by Bolsheviks. It is eliminated at the start.
We must have at least a four-term system: democracy, markets, planning, a Commons (NOT state ownership, as such), plus a whole series of other things,political/ economic rights, ecological agendas, etc, but a basic core that will automatically disqualify aberrations of the Bolshevik madness. Bolshevism wasn’t a ‘communism’ at all in our sense.

Update: Note that we can construct an ecological socialism/communism without marxism, without dialectic or dialectical materialism, without Marxist historicism, without Hegel/Marx and the oppressive jargon of German philosophy, The system is not a pretense of science, but a constructive recipe open to anyone at the level of basic literacy and recognizable as a socialist variant of democracy. We don’t need Darwinism which can be simplified to an empirical history of life, and not a theory, as yet. This system doesn’t indulge a battle between idealism and materialism, who cares, and follows the trend of religion from the Reformation to the rise of secular humanism: the system would probably need to incorporate the still developing history of religion in modern times. The system might stand beyond theism and atheism and still give a boost to secular humanism. The trend of modernity is beyond the ancient monotheism, but this need be no intolerant divide, another who cares in our system