Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 23:45:57 -0500 From: Howie Chodos <howie-AT-magi.com> Subject: Re: Epochal trajectories WPC (is it Paul?) wrote: >What they get right is related to the idea that society is fundamentally an >open process (in their terms unsutured). I think that anyone truly committed >to purging detrerminism from Marxism has to agree with this. It means, of >course, that any notion of "determination in the last instance" has to be >abandoned. This is the only possible conclusion from a rejection of >determinism, in the sense of not postulating an epochal trajectory of social >systems (primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, >communism, or some such list). > >------------ > >In what sense do you reject this trajectory? > >Do you reckon that the earlier transitions never happened, or that >the last one is unlikely or that arbitrary reverse transistions >may occur - socialism -> feudalism for example. > The main thing I wanted to stress was that there is no *necessary* progression, either in terms of the evolutionary paths of individual societies, or in terms of human socio-economic evolution as a whole. Obviously, the earlier transitions have occurred, and the later ones are made possible by the earlier ones. What I am trying to avoid is any sense that they are somehow the inevitable result of some initial dynamic, anchored in the very nature of our species, that is propelling us towards a classless future. Alan Carling's attempt to combine the insights of G. A. Cohen and Robert Brenner (in his "Social Division") yields the assertion that the transition from feudalism to capitalism was probabilistically necessary. As I understand him, he means that given enough time and enough variations of models of feudalism, some society somewhere was going to come up with capitalism. As it happened it was England. After the birth of capitalism, its economic superiority allowed it to impose itself. This is not a totally implausible thesis, but I have a lot of difficulty seeing how it could ever be applied, or what comfort we could ever derive from it. If capitalism is bad it is because of what it does, not because it is destined to be superseded. Socialism is one possible solution to the problems of capitalism, but it is neither a necessary one (at least in any time frame that has meaning for people alive at any given time, even when several generations of descendents are taken into account) nor the only one. Other possibilities include everything from the complete destruction of life on earth to a capitalism that manages to sustain itself through a combination of repression, continued economic dynamism, and the lack of a viable alternative. It seems to me that we cannot base our activity or our convictions on the hope that capitalism will someday reach the end of its tether. Human needs are remarkably malleable and capitalism has found ways both to shape them and to deny them. I see no reason to believe that there has to be some crisis that will prove insurmountable. This does not mean that capitalism can ever be crisis free, that it will ever do away with inequality, injustice, exploitation and oppression. It simply means that these things of themselves have not produced, and will not produce, a viable socialist transition. We have to do that, which means sustaining and developing the critique of the existing order of things, and finding a way to articulate a vision of an alternative that demonstrates an understanding of where previous revolutions went wrong. A brief tengent. I think that the idea that we should not try to work out a relatively developed blueprint for socialism on the grounds that this would be trying to predict the direction of future movements is no longer valid (if it ever was). The difference between Marx's day and now is that we are the heirs to the failed experiments in socialist construction, and we therefore have a responsibility to analyse them, and it is only on this basis that we will ever be able to convince people that future attempts can do better. (Of course, if one believes that capitalism will collapse of its own accord, this doesn't really matter.) Several other people have pointed to the various social regressions that have occurred, so I won't pursue that any further. However, Ron Press raised some interesting issues regarding complex systems. I have no understanding of the math involved, but I think that it is interesting to note that complexity theory would also seem amenable to forms of determinism. I am basing this on a rather cursory reading of the non-technical parts (i.e. very little) of Stuart Kauffman's "The Origins of Order". Kauffman is one of the whiz kids of complexity/chaos theory, and the technical parts of the book are beyond me. But I thought that the way he formulates things in the epilogue indicated that the transition from considering simple processes to more complex ones does not map directly on to a shift from deterministic to non-deterministic notions of the evolution of living systems. I'll end with a couple of brief citations from Kauffman (any help in coming to terms with their implications would be most welcome): "It has been said that a weakness of some biologists is persistent physics-envy: the seeking of a deep structure to biology. Rest content, is the sensible refrain, with middle-level theories capturing parts of how organisms work. Understand how a genetic cascade works, how sodium transport across a membrane is mediated. Surely we should, have, and will. Yet there is a new physics aborning, and it is time to again fall open victim to physics-envy. For want of a better name, the area which is emerging is something like a theory of complex systems. The trend grew out of statistical mechanics initially and now is clearest in solid-state physics. Study of strongly disordered systems, such as spin-glasses, where many elementary units interact with one another in randomly chosen but specified ways, has already revealed strikingly ordered properties in apparently chaotic systems. Indeed, even the passage of a fluid from laminar flow to turbulence is beginning to reveal hidden order. In short, physics is beginning to discover ways in which very complex systems nevertheless exhibit remarkable order. No reflective biologist can view these developments without wondering whether the origins of order in nonliving sytems augurs new insights for the origins of order in the lining ones as well. "...It follows that we must seek to understand the construction laws that allow complex systems to adapt on properly correlated landscapes and to understand how the couplings between landscapes evolve. In short, the capacity to evolve is itself subject to evolution and may have its own lawful properties. The construction principles permitting adaptation, too, may emerge as universals. Adaptation to the edge of chaos is just such a candidate construction principle. "Thus for all the known organisms on this branching river we call life, biology should aim ultimately to account for those essential features which we would expect to find in any recurrence of such a river. To suppose, as I do, that such an intellectual task may one day be achieved is, among other things, to suspect with quiet passion that below the particular teeming molecular traffic in each cell lie fundamental principles of order any life would reexpress." (pp.643-645) Howie Chodos --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005