Rerum cognoscere curss: social evolution and determinism

If this thread would be better placed in political theory or religion & philosophy, then by all means move it there. But this is a political opinion of sorts, and threads in this forum tend to get more attention, so yah.

…Did you miss me and my dirty tactics, guys?

So before my computer went on the fritz (I am starting to think that the claims about Generation Z’s overreliance on technology have some truth to them), I had a rather interesting off-topic discussion in one thread on how and why society develops, whether its development can be deduced in advance, and the “cursūs rerum”: the courses of things, of history. And I wanted to extend this to the rest of the forum. In your opinion, is there a trend to social change? Can we know it in advance? Are we progressing or regressing? What are the implications?

People often misinterpret the Marxist stance on this whole issue. It is well-known that historical materialism posits the notion of a definite historical course, which includes the end of capitalism. But from here, the interpretations go a bit haywire. I’ve heard several capitalists, most notably the Popper fans, claiming that Marx had a fatalistic view of history and prophesied a communist society whose existence is inevitable. This is not the case. It is true that Marx viewed the end of capitalism as inevitable, but no consistent materialist would claim that the next stage is foretold. The post-capitalist future is summed up in a phrase used by Engels and popularised by Luxemburg: “socialisme ou barbarie” or socialism or barbarism. So the Marxist view is that after capitalism, after the complete and utter abolition/sublation/whatever of capitalist production relations, society could go down one of two paths: either the working class could successfully take power and transition into socialism, or society could collapse. The latter has been a risk at every stage of historical evolution, since it results from the failure of a revolutionary class to successfully take power, but as you can see it has not yet happened.

But this is still a fatalistic assumption, right? Well, no. I’d prefer to think of it as the most likely estimate of the course of history, reached through deduction and reasoning. Given historical experience, capitalism seems exceedingly unlikely to be infinite. Every mode of production in history has been brought to an end, and not only that: it has visibly been brought to an end by one class (i.e. a stratum of society with a certain relationship to the means of production) overthrowing another after the contradictions between the classes build up to a certain point. For example, in the late 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries we saw the seemingly invincible feudal nobility of Europe overthrown in revolutions led by a newly emergent mercantile and industrialist class, who, after periods of initial turbulence, established states and corresponding ideological frameworks (liberalism, pretty much) which served their interests. Similarly, the ancient empires of the Mediterranean were driven out by mostly foreign forces with different class relations. Both of these series of revolutions occurred after the modes of production with which they dispensed became too contradictory and could no longer adequately economically provide for their populations. Capitalism also has observable contradictions (see here: https://commissaress.wordpress.com/political-articles/free-markets-vs-freedom/) , and is rapidly evolving towards this “nodal point”, as Hegel termed it, at which its contradictions overcome it.

Now, how do we know that after capitalism has been destroyed, we will have socialisme ou barbarie? Let us first consider the former option. The modern proletariat (people who don’t own means of production and who sell their labour to those who do) are in a very similar position to the aforementioned emergent industrial bourgeois of the feudal era. They are the source of all new production in society, and their exploited labour-power is the source of all profit. And yet (as described by the link earlier in this post), they do not benefit from this system. If we make the justifiable assumption that higher – in effect - wages, full access to the product of one’s labour, control of the state and of economic production and increased autonomy are in workers’ interests, capitalism is completely and increasingly contravening proletarian interests. And since social production depends on the proletariat, they are the class with the power to do what the bourgeois previously did: take over the state and revolutionise the mode of production, and it is very much in their interests to do so. If capitalism is inevitably going to end (as we established) and the proletariat for some reason cannot take control of the state, we have destruction without replacement, hence barbarie.

As for the trend of history, I find it reasonable to suggest that since social developments presumably depend on the development of productive forces (on what else would they depend – God’s will?) and productive forces are continuously increasing in effectiveness, the general trend in terms of society’s ability to provide for everyone is upwards. Of course, whether this trend exists in practice depends on the effectiveness of the mode of production, but this is why revolutions continuously occur and modes of production are continuously replaced by alternatives which are better suited to the current stage of technological/productive advancement.

Whew, that was long. Congrats for making it this far. Any comments are appreciated (especially if they are complimenting my Latin pun skills).

 

Two problems one, men are not omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Two, unless you prohibit trade between individuals, you will always have capitalism. And if you prohibit such trade you will have as in the former Soviet a large robust black market.Capitalism does not contravene anything cronyism does. The problem has never been capitalism the problem is was and always will be government.

 

Why is that a problem?

"Capitalism" is not synonymous with "trade": that would be linguistically redundant. Capitalism specifically involves private ownership of the means of production and/or the M-C-M' cycle, which trade does not necessarily involve.

 

I think recent developments in technology suggest the possibility of many outcomes, and I think communism is less likely than ever. As machines and artificial intelligence develop, the people who own the productive machinery will continue to increase their ability to control thought and provide carnal pleasure. Human beings will be given just enough to keep from wanting to overthrow the system, and I think we will end up with more of a technocratic market than a centrally planned economy.

 

But no amount of technology can eradicate the contradictions of an inherently contradictory system, and it will exacerbate them unless the ruling class moves quickly to deal with and adapt to the new challenges. Previous modes of production became extremely good at pacifying, but in the end they were still overthrown.

 

What are these contradictions I keep hearing about? Every time I look it up, I get nothing but vague descriptions, and nothing concrete.

 

I did link to a 2000-word article I wrote on the subject in the OP, but in a nutshell:

 

My primary argument is that I don't believe people are equal. I believe some are more valuable than others and should be awarded accordingly; however, I do agree that the amounts have become a little absurd.

Communism, unfortunately, hasn't accomplished much and leaves little in the way of a positive precedent to follow.

 

No system will ever accomplish that. We may be inclined to be charitable with some of our excess, but we won't sacrifice at our discomfort for the basic needs of another. We don't work a second job to give that check to families in need.
Humans forget we are just animals. We live socially simply because it increases our comfort and longevity. We play nice for the social perks. Let a famine hit and see how quickly our social etiquette evaporates. We are just animals with a big ego complex that war, disease, or disaster will eventually extinguish.

 

Exactly. Everything is window dressing provided by civilization, and it can all evaporate in an instant.

 

I love Game of Thrones.... When a city was about to be surrounded and attacked Cersei Lannister was talking about what would happen if the city was surrounded and starved out....that crowns and jewels would be traded for potatoes...
Richard Dawkins, whom I regard as one of the most brilliant minds ever...when asked what he thought would cause the extinction of mankind answered...mankind...
Who knows how it will all go down.
Enjoy it!

 

Yep. Mankind isn't going to make it forever. I would bet on us killing ourselves. lol

 

I am kinda hoping for the zombie apocalypse...haha.
I seriously doubt human extinction is looming... But my guess is we go out in a cosmic boom...like the dinosaurs. Some comet, asteroid, meteor... And as civilized and soft as we've become, our survival odds wouldn't seem promising.

 

Nope. Capitalism is trade between individuals and or groups. 'Wealth of Nations' was an attempt to explain the intricacies of what had been in place since clan a ran into clan b and decided they were too evenly matched to take what they wanted by force. Capitalism exists by and large because it is safer than theft and or war.

As for why the first is important without those attributes usually referred to as divine, you can't even begin to figure out what fair is let alone obtain it.

 

You could take that up with a Lassallean (good luck, they're all dead) but Marxists never proposed "rewarding people equally." How do you determine a person's value? We're not commodities. The consistent Marxist stance would be that people would not be quantified in communism, and therefore talk of "equality" in communism is meaningless.

You could have said that about democracy after it failed in ancient Greece - but when the conditions were ripe for democracy, it thrived. It's all about the conditions.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much. I'm not sure how this renders communism - quite simply an economic (not moral) system with social ownership of the means of production - impossible.

 

In that case 11th century Normandy was capitalist, as was the Eastern Bloc and ancient China. Making capitalism synonymous with trade is linguistically redundant and doesn't match the etymology of the word (it comes from capitale - property + -ism, the condition of having property). Not to mention that outside of some classical liberal circles, this is not the general consensus on the meaning of the word, even according to the majority of capitalists. Even a quick google will tell you that.

Still don't know what this has to do with communism.

 

Good question. Capitalism proposes that we use supply and demand to determine monetary value. Communism relies on...a committee? Value, in absolute terms, is far more difficult to determine. Talk of equality is not "meaningless" when your goal is to strip the wealth of the powerful, who are often far more capable than most of the people working for them, for the purpose of taking back what was supposedly stolen.

Is economic equality not an essential feature of communism?

The difference is that communism has failed every time. Clearly, the same cannot be said of capitalism or democracy. For what it's worth, I'm not the biggest fan of universal suffrage, but that is another issue.

Communism has a pathetic track record compared to capitalism.

If prices were determined by supply and demand, and the means of production were held in private hands, then you had capitalism of some sort--primitive, perhaps, but certainly capitalism.

 

Capital isn't property its money, something that either has value or can be used to represent value. Something that can be traded or used to facilitate trade.

If you cannot determine accurately what fair is how do you propose to figure out "from each according to his means to each according to his needs?" Try to ascertain this information is largely why communism never comes out of socialism. Once you get a government large enough and powerful enough and intrusive enough to collect that information it will never go any where of it's own volition.

 

How are we to interpret such a statement? It is like saying the problem is human nature. Both capitalism and government are reflections of human nature, and cannot be suppressed.

The human species has an evolved set of social behaviors that revolve around tribal hierarchy. Cooperation and individualism are delicately balanced, and force/intimidation are an intrinsic component of human interactions. Government is simply tribal structure scaled up.

There can be no principle of non-aggression. It is not commensurate with human nature. When you try to institute organizations that conflict with human tendencies they will fail (as you pointed out with regard to the Soviet Union).

* That government which governs least governs least.
* That government which governs best governs best.

There is no connection between these two statements in either logic or the patterns of human behavior.

 

Well said. "Free-market capitalism" and communism are both extreme ideologies removed from reality and human nature. I think everyone would benefit from studying more anthropology and evolutionary theory to clear this confusion.

 

Preteen Communist, what is your opinion on Chairman Māo?



Or are you more of a Russian-style communist?

 

Sure, and rather inadequately at that: if supply and demand were really the determinants of value, rather than just factors which influenced the fluctuation of monetary value around a certain level determined by socially necessary labour-time, we would see a much more "capricious" market. But humans are not commodities. The idea of determining whether humans are of equal or unequal value is meaningless.

Value as such does not exist in communism, since commodities are not produced and exchanged.

But how does one know what was "stolen"? That word seems to have a lot of moral implications, which always rings alarm bells in my head.

In the sense of everyone having the same relationship to the means of production, yes. In the sense of equal wages, no (that would be Lassalle again).

Because the conditions have been wrong every time, and I could tell you exactly why for every single applicable instance, if you want.

I agree (as long as there weren't feudal relations or whatever at the same time: capitalism is also defined by the M-C-M' cycle and the separation of society into two distinct strata rather than the many strata of feudal or slave society). This didn't exist until a few centuries ago.

 

Yes; the meaning of capitale in Mediaeval Latin, however, was property. Our modern word came from this. Capitalism is intrinsically bound up with, as well as capital circulation (and profit), private ownership of the means of production and the resultant social relations.

I'm a communist and I don't even believe in the notion of fairness. The two are completely unrelated, and I would say even antithetical (justice is a construct used by ruling classes).

As for accordance to needs..."from each according to ability, to each according to need" was not a Marx or Engels quotation; it was borrowed from a French Utopian socialist and was probably just one of those odd little references which academic types make to each other's work for the purposes of juxtaposition. "To each according to desire" would be a truer Marxist interpretation, since in communism there is overabundance and people can take what they want from communal stores.

Nope. There's no government at all in socialism/communism. Of course there are the people responsible for planning, but they don't have "authority" in the sense of ability to coerce.

 

I only like communists with beards.

I'm more German-Dutch style, actually. By which I mean the KAPD in the early 1920s, not the DDR.

 

What you have here is lovely theory that has been repeatedly and totally destroyed by reality.

If you cannot coerce your plans will be still borne.

How does your communal pool get replaced as it is used?

Human beings are not as communal insects.

Even in primitive societies the concept of yours and mine exists.

Part of self awareness is the need to self express through personal achievement and to be rewarded for that achievement.