In general, confusion arises over the question of revolution, in part, because of the ambiguity of the American and French exemplars, and the consequent equation of capitalist dynamics with historical dynamics in general. The leftist surge seen in the far left of the nineteenth century is a secondary stage of revolutionary realization that became frozen in its own ideology of revolution, one that tended to misjudge the nature of the modern transition itself. Whatever the case, the point for us is that we cannot easily mimic the modern transition with an artificially induced 'revolution'. This illusory hope is fully in evidence in the late Russian revolution, which was plagued by a false estimate of nothing less than the eonic effect itself, which was not understood by its agents, to say the least. We see nonetheless that there is nothing final about the outcome of the modern transition, and that the trend toward equalization so characteristic of the period of the Great Divide will endure, and rise to challenge the first fruits of secularism itself. This can easily produce a calamity of confusion since simple revolutions are simply inadequate to produce the desired imitation of the immense scale of the transition. In any case, the point to see is that much of the thrust of religion was wrested by the left for a new disposition toward equality, a consideration fully confirmed if we examine the real dynamics of, for example, Christianity, in the wake of the Axial period. The trend toward equalization is a powerful correlate of the eonic sequence, and this can help us to sort out the classic dialectical confusion over religion, liberalism, and revolution that tends to blur our understanding of the simple dynamics of the new epoch of secularism issued forth by the modern transition. 

Top