The Last Revolution_Postcapitalist_Futures_ver34ax

The debate over whether Marx is an economic determinist, as we discussed the issue today re: an article at Jacobin, is a waste of time. I admire Marx but his perspective undermined his own platform and left him forever vulnerable to the charge. Those who rush to defend him have a point but can never win the argument against the phalanx of hostile anti-Marxists, who have strong evidence on their side that Marx miscalculated the place of economics in history. We are out of time for this debate that I have watched for a whole life: it is a futile debate but one that Marxists in a sort of de facto defeat can never really escape. Better to move on and start over with new terminology and foundations. Marx and Engels make a great historical introduction as a saga, but the path to socialism must be done from scratch. Look closely at Marx: he was obsessed with his theory but ended in a kind of writer's block unable to complete Capital. The reason is obvious: he is trying to do something that can't be done in theory.

Decoding World History ED 1_6dcdx
We have offered a completely new approach from scratch, with a new view of history that is based on empirical chronologies.
The advantage of this approach is that you don't have to debate, say, idealism and materialism: but appear in the model at historical outcomes and part of a larger system. And so on: an empirical chronology works much better than the attempts to reduce history to some philosophy.

The eonic effect points to what might well be the solution to the quest for a science of history but it shows that the complexity is far beyond our sciences at this point: the question requires a new genre. Failing that we can examine instead empirical constellations of data as civilizations and the hidden driver of their evolution, to the extent we can understand it.

Debating Hegel versus Marx has to be the biggest waste of time ever. With our eonic model you get both.

In the meantime it is possible to create a simple recipe approach to socialist transformation. It doesn't require solving the Hegel/Marx debate or fussing over idealism versus materialism. All that is futile now. Our idea of 'democratic market neo-communism' shows the basics for a constructivist approach to a new form of economic/social system.