From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba-AT-online.no>
Subject: Re: AUT: Free Will???
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 16:34:29 +0200



----- Original Message -----
From: <topp8564-AT-mail.usyd.edu.au>
To: "Aut-Op-Sy" <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: 6. juni 2003 06.40
Subject: Re: AUT: Free Will???


This reply is probably a bit unfinshed, and also unclear
at places. But I'll send it along as it stands, or else it
might not be snt before I have seached the library for books
of relevance on the historical part, and taken the
time reading and thinking over the stories they tell.

Thiago, I did not address what was Marx, Bakunin, Kropotkin  or
any other historical figure opinion on the matter, but what I
understood as you expressing your own opinions. This said, if
it is so as that largscale waterworks simply caused
despotism, then it is not hard to see why a certain reading
of Marx became the theoretical foundation of primitivism, and
on the other hand why Marx so tragically greatly undervalued
the question of organizational forms in the struggle against
the siamese twins State and Capital.
        If I do not remember wrong though, he actually relied
on such notions as "civilization was too low and the territorial
extent too vast to call into life voluntary association". Something
which might sound a bit like what the depsotic rulers might
have argued too. In the question of the emergence of capitalism
he actually argued that changes in productiion relations and
the "superstructure" preceded changes in the "produductive forces,"
thus also the formal versus real subsumption of labour.
What this does to some of his more general formulas is not
my headache.

And before I continue, I never argued against the existence
of causes and effects.


There is nothing mysterious about the word relation, or perhaps
it is my English that plays me a trick here. It some times does.

But I could as an illustration take a replay of my "If I spit him or
her in the face, and /she strikes me back, is then my action the
cause of the latter?"  To which I answered: Hardly. It certainly
triggered it. It certainly would each time cause a reaction, but
which reaction lies outside of me and my act, and with him or her.
It might have come as a cold smile, silence and walking away,
or it might have been a roar of laughter."
        There surely is a strong relation with my spitting and and
his or her striking back, even if strictly speaking I was not the
cause of his or her action. I caused a reaction but s/he caused
the particular reaction og striking. One that migh be expected,
but still.
        Which also brings me to your "Huh?," though it is word
it might be hard to decide what thoughts hide behind it. In all
circumstances it was a repsone to:
       " No one doubts that we have to adjust to the world
        of our own making, but it thus not follow from this
        that there is only one way to adjust to it."

It simple means what it says. Despotism is not the only possible
way to adjust or adapt to -- or the only possible result of -- the
fact of large scale waterworks.  Though the world of our own making may
play us some unforseen tricks, and I do not know this part of
early history terrible well, it seems to me that there were quite a bit
of despotism involved in the making here too. However there is
relation here, as it is very hard, to but it mildly, to see this
particular kind of rule unfolding within a gather and hunting
society (or whatever they now call it. I forgot.)


But back to old Karl anyway, as I understand the below to be
an expression of your own opinion on the subject matter, regardless
of  the historical question of what Marx thought. But I like
to begin with your orginal statment to make clearer the context.

<< Take the Asiatic MP. When there is change in the technoeconomic
structure in form of the development of large-scale waterworks requiring
coordinated controls (never forgetting that for Marx the
technoeconomic structure is made of social relations), a set of effects
follow upon the superstructure, including despotic control of agricultural
land, the formation of a bureaucracy and eventually the Oriental style.
These permit further elaboration of the waterworks, involution of the
bureaucracy, etc... But it seems to be abundantly clear that the explanatory
power of the model is that it traces the sociocultural change and subsequent
technostructural elaborations back to the development of a specific strategy
of production. Isn't there a cause and effect here? In some sense? There is
definitely a suggestion of a nomothetic covariance where one term precedes
another. If you don't want to call it cause and effect, that's fine, call it
spring chicken.  >>


Then in your reply to my objections, you write:

"You say 'smuggling' as if I was doing something naughty. What's
wrong with saying that the changes in the technoeconomic structure
precipitate changes in  the - let's take the really 'superstructural'
superstructure, say, religion -  which then entrench and
precipitate further changes in the technoeconomic  structure? The
point in Marx, as I read him, is that it all flows, but it flows
in a particular direction.  But I really cannot see how someone
can sustain that Marx didn't believe that it was the *development*
of the methods of production (note 'methods') and the tensions
*generated* by the class distribution of production that *caused*
the change in superstructural formations. Production has a clear
priority in his thinking."

 ... "never forgetting that for Marx the technoeconomic structure is
made of social relations".  That is the magical trick! Is it possible
to even imagine that "the political superstructure" was not very
much a part of this technoeconomic structure, and "the development of
a specific strategy of production"?  So this becomes tautology. If
the productive forces included the relations of production, and both
also "the political superstructure" -- leaving the question of
art and religion open for now -- it is hard to see how the one
can be the cause of the other.

You wrote:

"When there is change in the technoeconomic structure in form
of the development of large-scale waterworks  ... a set of effects
follow upon the superstructure, including despotic control of
agricultural land, the formation of a bureaucracy and eventually
the Oriental style. "

I am unsure what exactly "Oriental style" is supposed
to mean, although  I might guess, but it does not matter
much here. The interesting is the claim that "despotic
control of agricultural land, the formation of a bureaucracy"
is caused by "the development of large scale waterworks".
You did not for instance write that despotic control in
the development of largescale waterwork caused despotic
control of agricultural land, and the formation of a
bureaucracy, which would at least seem more plausible.
But this would also point to that the causes would have
to be found in the social relations themselves, that
certainly exist and develop within a material world, but
hardly can be reduced  to the mere reflection of the
Order of Nature and Things.
        It is not that I doubt that a different technoeconomic
structure implies a different organizational form. Everything
else would imply supernatural forces lending a helping hand.
So this is in itself only to state the obvious. Changes bring
about changes. But even the whip and the torture chamber
do not give certain results each and every time. Their effect
also depends on who they are used upon. It is not the same
to say that the development of large scale waterworks,
and the spesific way of their development, which may have
little to do with production methods in themselves,  was a
factor -- whether an important one or not -- in the development
of despotism, and saying that these things and the mere
technical means needed for their development,
caused despotism.
        You mention such social phenomenoma as class tensions,
but as they seem to play no role at all for the effect --
depotism - they might as well have been left out of the picture
altogether. In the final instance there is only two players in the
field, Madame Cause Waterworks and Mr. Effect Despotism,
the rest having being reduced to bystanders.
        The key word in this case in all circumstances is of
an organizational nature. What is probably true is that do
develop and maintain these waterworks co-operation and
co-ordination was needed. In so far as the development of
large scale waterworks could be said to be a necessary
condition for survival, though other strategies could be
imagined as well, such as plunder or moving to less demanding
areas, which might again entail war (which btw is a more
likely candidate for the emergence of hierarchical rule),
then this might be said to be the cause of their development.
But it is hard to see how nature could impose a certain
hierachical form, the whip and a specific bureaucracy,
to not say nothing about poetry.

Nor do I really believe that you believe "the development of large
scale waterworks" in itself caused what you say it did. You add
another element into this of a whole other nature than the
mere practical work of the development of large scale water-
work, though it at first glance might look otherwise, namely
"requiring coordinated controls (never forgetting that for Marx the
technoeconomic structure is made of social relations), ". While
not expcitly stated, it is beyond doubt that behind the innocent
words "requiring coordinated controls" is here introduced
power/class relations that does not automatically follow from
the mere work and the coordination needed to develop and
maintain large scale waterworks.  Relevant btw. to the discussion
on fethisism. The making of such an technoeconomic structure
could have formed the material basis for largely egalitarian,
cooperative societal forms, and thought this is not something I
have studied, others have also claimed that there are historical
examples on this taking place. But as your statements stands,
it  more or less says that on the basis of already existing class
or power relations the development of large scale water works
was de facto carried out despotically and bureuacratically, and
... this caused the further devolopment of despotic,
bureaucratic rule.  Which would be unsurprising, though it
could have also triggered a sucessfull rebellion. What it further
says, for that is the only way the "the development of large
scale waterworks" in itself could be seen as the cause of
depspotic, bureuacratic rule, rather than something that can
be exploited by it and facilate its further reinforcement,  is that
the absolute only possible way large scale waterworks could
be developed was in a bureaucratic, despotic form. A form which
is thus transformed from specific, and humanly produced
social relations, to something simple given by Nature or God,
and as such also part of the ideology of despotic,
bureaucratic rule.
        Of course, such absolute rule of the Things is what
the primitivist preach.

I find I am all to ignorant on this part of history  (something I
will  try to rectify ) but it would be intresting to hear how for
instance the emergence of the Mauryan empire in the Indian
subcontinnet was *caused by* the development of large
scale water works.
        It should for that sake be intersting to hear how the
emergence of capitalism was simply caused by new produtive
forces. Even on the basis on Marx account, it will not be easy
to construct such a case.

Harald



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---