On the Protocols of New Historicism and Epochal Thought: A proposition

1. Introduction

It is believed that the academic significance of such a doctrine as Historicism, especially as it has been applied by Marx and Engels (Engels, 1880), has been limited on account of the perturbations that it has suggested under the guise of manufactured regimes in the form of Nazism, Stalinism, and the Khmer Rouge (Lemkin, n.d.). While not necessarily accelerationist, it can be understood that these regimes follow an assumedly unitarian and singular (while not morally bankrupt) approach towards their own Historicist outcome. From this general and non-complex outline, it may be assumed that these Historicist outcomes are arbitrary, but it is important to understand that they do share a common, Utopian theme which is emblematic of a functionable Hegelian Dialectic (Kumarappan, 2012).

In order to otherwise properly describe Historicism, this article describes two modes whereby it can be described (conscious and unconscious) that each are related to the same indeterminacy discovered by result in this article. It is also considered that the conscious affects to retain the genus of Historicism that has itself been described in the work of Marx and particularly Engels, yet, as aforementioned, it has been derided in corrupt practice.

This article then includes its diction for the subject of political action that is so married with the Historicism (again, particularly in Marx) where the extremist politics of a Historicist necessity are removed and qualified instead with the politics of our own Epoch and a future, total equality is replaced with a most modern and current goal of Equity.

1.1. Initial Assumptions

This article derives its reasoning from the process of idealisation that is discussed Maynard’s the Logic of Idealisation in Political Theory (Leader, 2024). It suggests a degree of unrealistic expectations that accompany ideal works and the realistic expectations of non-ideal works. However, both are only interpretations and expectations and therefore neither can supply an exacted ideal for which the future should be. It is such that predicting a perfect expectation via models such as Historicism is a futile act, yet Historicism retains the importance that it predicates over historical events and their constituent Epochs.

2. The Idealisation of Epochal Thought

The Epochs are described by necessities generates by their development (which observes that a certain scale of such is required to initiate a following Epoch). It is important to remember that developments are measured against a whole society: material and mannered progressions are both considered. Of course, it should be possible to assume a following developmental stage under the prerogative that it can be heuristically and empirically derived from already assumed historical transpirations.

In assuming this inconceivable, yet heuristic approach to developments, a proof must be made against contrary ideas. If one should initiate a hypothetical future, and one that is suited to be a future developmental displacement from where we are situated now, then the following qualities should be attached to it: it is exclusively an idealised political concept, and it remains conceivable. Specifically, when a future, Epochal reality is conceived, it is only an idealised property because there exists no anticipated compromise with alternative parties in conceiving this future state. Laplace's Demon (Pitowsky, 1996) must instead be necessitated in order to find some true outcome, and then it must contend with the individual proclivities of politics, which are void in physics. Note that in considering the nature of the theory where it relates to simply idealistic political positions, it is recognised that they affect to worldly states akin to the interpretation of the future developmental stage.

It is concluded that the proclivities of Historicism whereby they relate to significant societal and epochal differences are true, but that the formation of Epochs depends on the quality the development that precedes them – it is impossible to act upon an Epoch at one’s own determination for the sake of some vague progression – Smith’s “invisible hand” (Harrison, 2011) in our own Capitalist Epoch is representative of the immediacy of this design. In our time, it is beneficial to approach means of equity rather than to seek revolutionary valour, despite perceived injustices.

2.1. New Historicism

However, I still do retain knowledge of the fact that, as has been mentioned in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (Marx, 1852), the significance of salient historical events retains itself upon a degree of phenological resonance – such that the character of one event is influenced by the glories of a previous event’s nature: “Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of the whole cloth”. Therefore, we can assume that the recurrence upon events is constructed upon an unconscious, yet semi-systematic manner, and simultaneously, the Epochal thought whereby one should usher in a new age is predicated on an exploitation of these realities.

We instead understand that under the assumptions of idealisation, the prerogative to usher, where it should necessitate a dialectic (and therefore corrected) situation, and the necessities to create the new age under its conditions, we understand that the proper and true outcome of any development is here unknown, and that the capacity to usher is assumed incorrectly.

As such, Historicism must be reconsidered on a basis divergent to the mimesis that suggests government. This can be done with respect to two means: a conscious case for change, and an unconscious case otherwise. The former is defined by the exploitation that one may take upon the principles of this New Historicism, and the latter is an academic qualification set upon recognising immediate historical traits. The common factor that unites the pair is the indeterminacy that they are both subject to and the humanist contents of equality, fraternity, and liberty and the progressive, social mode of development (which has been devised to spurn accelerationism).

The unconscious Historicism is made under the central idea of recognition, which is that upon the fact that it is – as is suggested in the Eighteenth Brumaire – a natural quality of human historical intuition. In this sense, Historicism becomes something more of a psychoanalysis in the context of one’s observation – and likewise, the psychoanalysis can be performed exclusively in a disjoint apprehension to the material from which it is derived, so therefore the observer is limited to their means.

However, what has made Historicism into a truly comprehensive model for Philosophy is the influence that it beckons over societal strength and suggests that its applicability transcends historical Epochs – understood where “thus did the revolution of 1989-1814 drape itself alternatively as Roman Republic and as Roman Empire”. Therefore, the new Historicism must be predicated on a basis that, while not suggestive of predicting some future event, it promotes the recognition of significant events. However, it should be noted that the “cloth” has been used for unconscious means, the past that it describes can necessarily be changed whereby human intuition is altered to conceive different means of significance in equal historical events. So, this new historicism must instead be anticipatory of Epochal realities, but because they are unknown, it must also, and more importantly be able to recognise the significance of these events in the context of a future intuition – simply, to study the continued folding of the cloth and to construct a whole, non-processional History (quite unlike the exclusively dialectical form that has been espoused in simple, Epochal descriptions).

As a final addition to the conscious New Historicism, the idea of the cloth as a metaphor for History is quite fortunately more than a lucky accident of Marx’s, but rather that which describes the shape and axiomatic structure of a history (especially where it is not perceived as bringing an eventual product – the completion of history); but this is only a hypothesis for further work.

2.2. Political Leanings

For instance, our current Epoch is defined by its truly scalar existence: “political leanings” are established on account of a relativity between each other and even in assumedly extremist positions, they retain their scalar approach relative to an intermediate “moderate”. On account of the idea that an intellectual limitation is perceived on account of our own deprivation of immediate faculties, it can be assumed that political leanings should develop beyond traditionalist, scalar characteristics and allow for an expansion into territory yet unknown. For one who should have yet determined multi-axis methods of political affiliation to challenge this idea, it should be recognised that the “axes” encompass “left-“ and “right-wing” (Rossi & Sleat, 2014) affiliations and only qualify individual proclivities according to topical character.

The collection of Communists that has been prevalent since the European revolutions of 1848 have thus existed outside of these canonical, Epochal leanings. The identity of extremist politics is characterised by a supposed “maximisation” of the traits held by either side. Of course, this is not true: the left of the Capitalist Epoch is rendered on the Equality, Fraternity, and Liberty (Beik, 1970) of humanist1 reactions to Feudalism and the right is composed of the increased production of the commodity that socialised labour brings (Engels). Note that these ideas are qualitative and that they contradict each other (i.e. the capitalist cannot benefit from the increased production of the commodity without obstructing the equality, fraternity, and liberty of the proletarian class in some way).

2.3. Equity

Given that this article supplements the notion of an eventual Socialism, the idea of the “equality, fraternity, and liberty” that is directly associated with a worldly equity (it is understood that these terms are, as is governed by the frame of the Epoch, immediate to the contemporary that they have been manifest in; this is contrary to the unworldly equality shown in the philosophies of Early Christianity and Buddhism) can appear to be perhaps impossible on account of the precepts of the Capitalist Epoch, yet the development of a middle-class predicated on some form of ownership (whereby such has been treated in developed states following World War Two).

As Orwell has noted in his Road to Wigan Pier (Orwell, 1958), to void support for Socialist aims is to be objectively inconsiderate and uncompassionate, yet as this article understands, to achieve that which is outside of one’s own capacitance is a contradictory task. The most serious action for anyone who should describe themselves as a Socialist is therefore to consciously understand and develop upon class distinctions that are made in the contemporary and to pursue immediate institutional equity.

3. Conclusions and Significance

The Significance of this article is predicated on the importance that it places on Historicism as a study and against the accelerationist prerogative that is associated with Historicism. Simply, this Historicism is derived from whence it has not been applied. It is shown that unlike medicine or engineering, it is futile to attempt to exploit principles that we already understand on account of its previous function for which we then predict should be effective on a different Epochal basis.

It relates to the more pragmatic political action that is often made in reaction to the idea of political necessity. We aim for Socialism because it is proper achievement, but it does not confer its own strictly necessary character unless we should suggest it to. It is intended that this short text should act as a starting point for a pivot in general thought, and that the hypotheses pertaining to the New Historicism should aid perspective for a modern Historicism.