The charges against Marxist theory found classic formats in the critiques of Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper as to historical inevitability and historicism, respectively. A tendency toward deterministic analysis haunted marxist theories with the confused result we see in the wake of the Second Internationale and the Bolshevik episode: should agents stand back passively to allow the unfolding from teleological premises or should they actively work to bring about the result. This confused situation is a symptom of an inadequate theory and a false teleological projection against events. We can see that the eonic model more adequately reanalyzes this situation as the interplay of two levels. The only teleological anything we could glimpse here is that of the democratic revolution, and this is forced into the distinction of macro and micro phases. There is thus no teleological projection of a socialist future that is safe for us to endorse. The more likely result is simply a series of mal-formed experiments attempting to blend incoherent elements. This is not an argument against socialism, only a reminder that such a project would need to be constructivist as a gesture of free men. Historical inevitability thinking based on an undefined abstraction called 'socialism' distracted Marxist from the need to think practically about what they intended. 

 The distinction in our model between system action and free action suggests the nature of the problem confronting rigid theories. The result is simply, men become free to do as they please, but unless they can produce a democratic system, whether socialist or not, their efforts are likely to produce unstable results. We can't resolve this question fully, save to note that a careful study of the American revolution and subsequent democracy formation shows all the elements needed for the creation of a socialist democracy as a practical gesture of innovative politics. But we must consider that, for whatever reason, the success of this classic gesture put the emphasis on the formation of a republic first and foremost. Without a republican basis, a socialist gesture is going to end in the wreckage of a totalitarian resolution. Thus look closely at the stage of republican experimentations to find the lost vitamins of socialist theory, even as the class basis of much that is visible in the American experiment begins to stand out. Remorphable potential outcomes suggest themselves without limit, and free us of the Leninist temptation to forego this real complexity of democratic realization. 

As to the 'end of history' question, we will refer the reader to the treatment in the text of World History And The Eonic Effect, noting that Hegel's and Fukuyama's version are hardly the same. The point for us is that our model suggests a much simpler rendering of the question, indeed the question, Have we reached the 'end of the eonic sequence'? If so the potential of free action in the wake of a prodigious system is open to the dangers and difficulties of free realizations that misinterpret the eonic sequence. 

As to Hegel's idea, it is obvious that he seems to sense the eonic effect, and its 'freedom generation', and wishes to give a teleological basis for that. In our version, we see that the effort to maintain the achievements of democracy during the entry to the micro phase of the post-transition require understanding that the emergence of freedom has a macro aspect that is evolutionary, and that micro deviations from that will fritter away the gains of time in a new mediavalism. We thus echo Hegel's point: there's no going back. Unfortunately, we must realize that the brief emergence of Greek democracy was all too brief, and the action of mideonic elements is not controlled by the eonic sequence. Thus the vigilance required to stay on course, a vigilance present up to a point in the leftist discourse, but all too obvious itself subject to the post-transitional chaotification of the mainline induction. 

Top