With the crisis of the Putin regime, a new and even more unstable period in world history may be opening up. The “Cold War” was marked by tensions and constant struggles. Then the collapse of the S…
One must recommend a study of the eonic effect and model and its solution to the challenge of Kant to find/consider a ‘philosophy of history with a cosmopolitan purpose’ through a ‘hidden purpose of nature’ next to the issue of an ‘agreement between politics and nature’.
The texts of Decoding World History and World History and the Eonic Effect are available online (cf. the post Online texts/downloads)
The issue of ‘god’ is a red herring here and in the larger eonic sequence we see the nexus of ‘god/theism’ is itself a stage in the progression of natural epochs. The issue of god is actually easy: we can have directionality in history without recourse to any idea of ‘god’, an idea whose incoherence swamps its actual usage. Kant himself warns against teleological metaphysics as a proof of the existence of god.
The eonic model shows clearly that world history shows directionality and next to that and in tandem a parallel processor that, for example, shows atheist and theist religions emerge in parallel. Directionality suggests teleology which can only be inferred as a hypothesis of history up to our present. Any model must reconcile free agency and a teleological future, not actually hard to do. (there are multiple possibilities: nature can project purpose and its agents can realize that in practice and/or fail to do so, and/or in discrete continuous model of teleology simply deviate against direction into chaos: looking at the unexpected onset of world wars one suspects the last option)
Continue reading “nature, teleology, the eonic model, illusions of theism/atheism…//Habermas on the Kantian Vision of Perpetual Peace “
Bringing in Cohen is a clever strategy, in vain, I fear. I have repeatedly suggested a look at The Last Revolution to Jacobin, to no avail. I have been canceled and won’t get a hearing. Lots of other places to get such a hearing. Clearly however, as I suspect, the ranks of Marxism are becoming aware of my critique. But does Jacobin seriously think that Cohen, analytical Marxism and/or the Western Marxists, despite impressive and intelligent work can really salvage Marxism as a theory of history? We are running out of time, we need a minimal package to construct socialism and postcapitalism. Surprisingly Marx eliminated himself and his many followers from being able to do that.
I have advised simply dropping historical materialism. Getting brilliant fellows like Cohen to waste their talents trying to reanimate that dead corpse is in the words of Patton in the Sahara battles, ‘a waste of fine infantry’. The relations of production theory is Marx’s innovation of theory and it doesn’t work. World history is far more complex than a machine of economic factors: it has religious, aesthetic, philosophical,political, etc, streams with their own dynamism. Examine world history: the relations of production are indeed an object of study but the analysis of Marx’s got lost in a woods, in part because he wanted to somehow guarantee that a communist stage would proceed from a capitalist stage. He may be right for an entirely different reason: capitalism is driving everyone including Mlle Gaia crazy and the only remedies are barbarism or some constructed version of a new society that doesn’t depend on capitalism. But there is no law of history that guarantees this. Socialism or communism have to be defined historically. Mlle Gaia can’t figure it out: we must create a postcapitalist vehicle that might take many forms and none of them are inevitable unless we create their future as free agents. Here Marxists are forever stuck in the limbo to which Karl Popper and Isaiah Berlin took and left them, egad, the Poverty of Historicism and Historical Inevitability, … But empirical studies of ‘relations of production’ as histories are eminently possible. Marxist have wasted all their time and never tried this approach and produced an immense literature of obsolete books on theory. Here to inject another opinion of mine: I would say that ‘starges of production’ theory can’t even explain slavery which is not a stage of production save empirically where it was a disease of civilization. The danger of Marx’s approach is seen here: it threatens to make a law of stages with aberrations of civilizations. History should have produced higher civilization without slavery, and we see however how the phenomenon took over the whole of occidental antiquity. There was nothing inevitable about bit. Note that at the dawn of Greek democracy Solon denounced slavery, to no avail.
In the end in the context of the eonic effect, abolition arose in the modern transition as a macro factor finally generated its abolition in the emergent factors of the modern transitions (which also at its fringes, e.g. the New World showed a near rebirth of slavery in relation to capitalism.
I cannot hope to talk Marxists out of their pet theories but I can suggest that Marx’s work is no longer popular and is now of little interest to the working class and/or anyone else.
We have a crisis that needs a new formulation. The abstruse versions of Marxism are too complicated and ended up in disastrous confusions. Marxism as this point is an immense charge of the light brigades and will end up eliminated from the path to a viable socialism which is not a Marxist monopoly.
Socialist philosopher G. A. Cohen was a brilliant thinker who subjected Marxism to the same scrutiny he would any other ideology. If you want to see Marxism at its most nondogmatic and precise, you should read G. A. Cohen.
The post on Zinn and the Socialist Revolution group has an update as below and/or in the post itself. Marxist theory is a tremendous obstacle to the path to socialism and it is highly probable that the public will never agree to any such Marxist project, revolutionary or reformist. A far simpler approach is needed available. Continue reading ” Marxism and the crisis of the left”
A useful review of the core of War Against Marxism, but the result still makes little sense. We have spent two centuries rehashing Hegel versus Marx and the results are totally confusing and unproductive. Marxism has failed to produce socialism and the result should be ‘you’re fired’, so we can start over with something more productive. Neither Hegel nor Marx had the data for a study of history and/or evolution even as the ideology of Darwinism ended up snaring the whole Marx legacy. The references here to Hegel’s method are ludicrous. What was that? Maybe a Sparks notes version might help.
I recommend a complete break with this jargon ridden universe and a simple escape route of socialism into a new and simpler approach to history, philosophy, religion and economics. The idea for a science of history and/or a philosophy of history has failed and a new approach such as simple chronologies can be a useful substitute. The whole base superstructure distinction is a pack of nonsense. It is very hard to resolve the dynamic of history but it is clear that that is not economic. Economic determination is secondary in historical realization and it is not clear just how history works. A close study of the eonic model can suggest a new perspective with a warning that historical and organismic evolution remain unsolved problems for human knowledge. The realm of Marx and Hegel in this direction are obsolete realms of fiction. Marx was an ambitious theorist who ended up in twenty years of writers block unable to complete Capital because its core was incoherent and incapable of scientific completion. Marx finally gave up and handed the whole mess of Capital to Engels who managed to rescue something from the mess of pottage. The generations studying Capital have produced a sophistical and incoherent cult that is a de facto religion and a dangerous stance toward heretics still in the realm of common sense. Marx was a predator who took over the idea of socialism and made it a kind of personal property as an ism in his name, Marxism. Time to just let go and and start over.
PDF | Bloomsbury Academic: London and New York, 2021. 280 pp., $29.95 pb ISBN 9781350201415 About the reviewer Fouad Mami is a literature scholar from… | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate