On Mon, 16 Jan 1995 10:40:32 -0800 Justin Schwartz said: >On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, Jim Devine wrote: >> Justin, on your reference to G.A. Cohen's reconstruction of historical >> materialism, I would add the adjective "failed." He produced a >> technological-determinist theory of history that differs w quite >> radicaly from Marx's materialist conception of history.... > >The situation with Cohen is more complex than you suggest. In the first >place you dispute only the accuracy of Cohen's scholarship, viz. whether >he has Marx right. Whether or not he does, however, what Cohen produced >was probably the clearest, most precise and coherent, best articulated >statement of a Marxian theory of history we have. If it's not a good representation of Marx's view, in what way is it Marxian? This point is reinforced by the fact that the technological- determinist theory is a bourgeois theory that precedes Marx. See, for example, Comninel RETHINKING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1987, Verso) and Rigby, MARXISM AND HISTORY (1987, St. Martin's). Both cite Meek 1976 MARXISM AND THE IGNOBLE SAVAGE (C.U.P.) Marx was clearly influenced by this t-d theory (which shows up in Smith, among others), but seems to have moved toward the vol. III theory in which it's the mode of production of the surplus (the mode of exploitation) which reveals the inner secrets of a social formation (ch. 47, s. 2). (I'd guess that Marx's relationship with t-d theory is a lot like his relationship with Ricardo. He learned a lot but did so critically and then moved on to better stuff.) The problem for Cohen's theory that arises from Marx's theory is that as Marx argues (but authors such as Braverman make clear), the nature and speed of technological change are endogenous, to a large extent _determined by_ the mode of exploitation. In the postface to the 2nd edition of CAPITAL, Marx quotes a reviewer favorably as summarizing Marx as saying that each economic system has its own laws of population. The same applies to the laws of technology, as Marx describes how the capitalist lust for profits influences the kind of machines introduced and the way in which they are used. Technological determinism only works if technological change (both its quality and quantity) are exogenously given. Tech. determinism is even weaker than genetic determinism, because most of the time, an individual's genes don't change due to environmental influence. And these changes aren't transmitted to the young, unless Lamarck and Lysenko were right. Technology is affected severly by the societal environment and is transmitted to future generations. > Unfortunately the less >technologically determinist accounts tend to either degenerate into >handwaving when it comes to discussing (a) revolutionary transitions from >one mode of production to another and (b) specifying a non t-d sort of >determination of the superstructure by the base or the relations of the >base to the productive forces, either that, or they degenerate into an >ill-theorized eclectic multi-causalism which doesn't capture anything that >might be specifically called "materialist." . . . Except compared to the vaguest multi-causalism, I don't see determinism as a virtue (and I'd like to know what _you_ mean by "materialism"). What's the advantage of a deterministic theory if reality isn't deterministic? To my mind, the point of a theory of history is NOT to present a heart-warming story of how victory is inevitable (to cheer us as the Newtron bomb hits DC). Rather, it is to figure out what parts of the historical process have "nature-like" or "automatic" laws of motion and _what parts don't_ (and the relationship between these two types of parts). The multi-causalists reject the former, while Cohen et al reject the latter. Both are missing something. Historical change is not pre- determined. There is NO automatic march to socialism. The 2nd and 3rd Internationals were hurt by their mechanistic visions of determinism. Lenin, whatever his other faults, at least got away from determinism, knowing that individual actions and decisions (or group actions and decisions) can have important effects (not always good, but that's another issue). Getting beyond Lenin, there is a role in history for organizing the opposition to the system. Without an organized and conscious opposition, it won't matter if capitalism falls apart. The capitalists will put the pieces back together again (after a period of chaos, of course). "Automatic Marxism" of the sort that Cohen formalizes misses this point completely. On this, I recommend Mike Lebowitz's book, BEYOND CAPITAL, 1992, St. Martin's: ch. 7. Also, one of the problems with Cohen is that he takes the semi- determinism that Marx saw in the laws of motion of capitalism and says that they apply transhistorically. That is, Marx saw a clash between the forces and relations of production as rising automatically under capitalism (with the actual results of this clash depending on class struggle). Cohen takes the technological dynamism (growth of the forces of production) that is characteristic of capitalism and decides it applies to all previous modes of production (and downgrades the role of class and other struggles). A certain type of "technological determinism" does apply under capitalism: capitalism produces amazing and gigantic technological changes which keep on changing the institutions and cultures of the world. They sometimes conflict with capitalism itself. But other social formations produce very different kinds and degrees of technological change, contradicting technological determinism. >As to Cohen's scholarship, although his account is based on the 1859 >Preface, it is not restricted to that, and he offers extensive evidence >from many of Marx's writings that Marx really meant the Preface view. >After all, he (Marx), calls it his Leitfaden, guiding thread, in his first >statement of his mature economic views (in the Contribution...), and >adverts to it again in Capital, e.g., in the footnotes in the Fetishism of >Commodities. I do think that Marx actually held this view as his >"official" account, although it is in immense tension, if not actual >contradiction, to a lot of his other ideas, and one might construct an >internal critique of it based solely on materials Marx himself provides. >E.g., the fact that the rise of capitalism and the "formal subsumption" of >labor to capital precedes the technological changes of the industrial >revolution, where the theory seems to call for the reverse. The "guiding thread" is often translated as "heuristic," as opposed to a deterministic theory a la Cohen. As you note, Marx's mature theory contradicts his 1859 precis. His 1844 writings do too. So why not dump the 1859 precis, or rather its t-d interpretation? BTW, the reference to the 1859 preface during Marx's discussion of the fetishism of commodities is a reference to his _economic_ determinism, not _technological_ determinism. He refers (p. 175 of the Verso/Vintage ed, n. 35) to the "mode of production," not to the technology. The mode of production involves both technological and societal/institutional components (cf. Derek Sayer's THE VIOLENCE OF ABSTRACTION, Basil Blackwell, 1987). Frankly, Marx's economic determinism makes more sense than any technological determinism. This is especially true when one notes that class and other struggles take place within the "economic base" (mode of production).The problem, of course, is that the "base" and "superstruc- ture" are not as clearly defined as they were in the 19th century, when Marx wrote. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante.
