Development of society, progression and necessity

[Rawthentic]

When you look at history, you can easily spot a tendency towards progression in humanity.

Just curious, LZ:

how so?

[Led Zeppelin]

Just curious, LZ:

how so?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question.

Do you want me to explain how I see that humanity has had a tendency towards progression? Well, uh, look at where we are today and where we came from, that pretty much shows that tendency...

Or do you want specific examples of humanity tending towards progression rather than regression? I think the overthrow of slavery-based societies and the subsequent overthrow of feudal societies, has demonstrated this tendency clearly.

Of course that is stating it in the broadest sense, the overthrow of feudalism and slavery as social systems included many other forms of progression in manners of thinking, modes of production, and pretty much everything else.

That is not to say that there weren't any periods of regression.

[Rawthentic]

I see.

I agree that humanity did progress in terms of reaching different social systems. I've been studying this question and idea as a part of my courses in college (mainly anthropology).

Do you think the rise of agriculture, which led to the rise of states and inequality, was progress?

Do you think it had to turn out that way or could something else have happened?

[Led Zeppelin]

Do you think the rise of agriculture, which led to the rise of states and inequality, was progress?

Yes, economic and technological progression which led to that was progress, and it was necessary for us to arrive to where we are today.


Do you think it had to turn out that way or could something else have happened?

No, I believe that in the broad sense it had to turn out the way it did, given the fact that due to the material conditions it could not have been different.

I agree with Marx and Engels on this:


Every change in the social order, every revolution in property relations, is the necessary consequence of the creation of new forces of production which no longer fit into the old property relations.

When, towards the end of the Middle Ages, there arose a new mode of production which could not be carried on under the then existing feudal and guild forms of property, this manufacture, which had outgrown the old property relations, created a new property form, private property. And for manufacture and the earliest stage of development of big industry, private property was the only possible property form; the social order based on it was the only possible social order.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

[Rawthentic]

Don't get me wrong, LZ, I'm not advocating some return to hunters and gatherers. I'm just questioning some of the main assumptions we have in regards to history, teleology, and progress. I think it is important to take a deeper look.

Economic and technological changes led to the rise of agriculture (and all the things that came along with that). This led to rise of epidemics, private property, exploitation, inequality. But it also led to a lot of good innovations. We were now able to feed thousands without having to travel daily in search of food. We were able to have specialists that focused on medicine, politics, organization, etc.

Anyway, it seems like your first sentence implies that nature takes on a natural progression, a fine line so to speak. Do you think we are in a "necessary" state? Do you think that all the changes that have occurred since agriculture pointed towards where we are?

I do think there are broad patterns to history that lead to one place or another. It is definitely important to identify this. But I want to dig into the question of "natural progression" or "necessity".

When hunters and gatherers took up agriculture, they clealry did not have in mind all of its consequences. They were making history, but not exactly as they chose to.

[Led Zeppelin]

Anyway, it seems like your first sentence implies that nature takes on a natural progression, a fine line so to speak. Do you think we are in a "necessary" state? Do you think that all the changes that have occurred since agriculture pointed towards where we are?

I do think there are broad patterns to history that lead to one place or another. It is definitely important to identify this. But I want to dig into the question of "natural progression" or "necessity".

No, not at all. I do not believe that history has been a fine line of progression. As I said, there have been regressions, but there have also been leaps. There are many nuances, which makes sense given the complexity of human history as a totality.

However, I do believe that when looking at history broadly, you can identify a line of progression. It is not simply economic progression, even though that is the most important factor, but also philosophical, psychological, technological etc. progression.

As for the question of necessity. I do believe that ultimately, in the broad lines I was referring to, history had to go through the phases it went through. This was something dictated by material conditions. You cannot escape those conditions, however much you would like to. You are foced to make history in accordance with those conditions, and you make it as a result of those conditions, while building upon new conditions.

In that respect, there is necessity involved. Historical materialism is based on identifying this necessity, and its root causes and sources of development. That necessity is the development of the material conditions of society, which conditions the shape and form of the development of society.

EDIT: By the way, I find this discussion interesting. I'm going to split it to theory if you don't mind. That way this thread won't be derailed and we can continue our discussion more in-depth there, that is, if you would like to.

Also, I moved the posts before I saw your other one, so it was posted in the other thread. Could you delete that one?

[Rawthentic]

Good post, LZ.

As I mentioned before, when hunters and gatherers took up agriculture, they were not doing so with the conscious intention of creating a new mode of production that would lead to deeply radical changes in human structures. As you said, they were bound by complex factors that impelled them to develop agriculture and further sustain themselves.

And I think communism represents a break with how different social revolutions and changes in modes of productions were carried out. Our movement aims to a conscious overthrow of this social system and its replacement with a new mode of production that can lead to a stateless, classless society. We are making history with the conditions we were given, but the difference is that we are conscious of that fact and how the creation of new conditions can bring about a better world for humanity.

When we started this conversation, I think I worded things wrong. When I said, "Do you think it had to turn out that way or could something else have happened?", I did not have in mind that those humans did not have an array of choices to choose from. Their "choice" (if thats what it can be called) was bound by their need to survive and procreate.

[Revolutionary-Socialist]

Good posts LZ and Rawthentic, as I told you a short while back. I think it is very interesting that society develops according to certain laws. Discovering them was key to the founding of Marxism as a ideology. I'm still learning about all this stuff and I hope I can learn more by reading threads like these here.

[ComradeOm]

I think it is very interesting that society develops according to certain laws. Discovering them was key to the founding of Marxism as a ideology. I'm still learning about all this stuff and I hope I can learn more by reading threads like these here.Be careful here. What Marx 'discovered' was a history of classes and the material basis for their interactions. There are no "laws" in history and nor did Marx ever claim there to be any such 'grand theory'. At best historical materialism is a set of guidelines that help us better understand historical events. Unfortunately this aspect of Marx's work, like so many others, is readily vulgarised into some sort of Whig history

"One will never arrive [at a historical analysis] by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical" [Marx 1877]

[Cumannach]

I think the development of technology and it's relation to the productive forces is a very interesting topic in relation to this subject. In particular the actual manifestation of the productive forces and the actual level of technology, the relationship between these.

[Rawthentic]

I'm glad the question of "laws" was brought up.

I also don't believe there are laws to history, because embedded within that assumption is that historical progression needs to conforms to these "laws", when in reality history is a dynamic movement that is full of accidents and yes, patterns (not the same as laws).

Cumannach:

can you elaborate on how you view the relationship between the productive forces and technology?

[Cumannach]

Well I'm still struggling to get a view really. But the relationship between science, and the actual technology that can be applied as new productive force, and the actual magnitude of those forces is something I'm always interested in.

For example, the development of Calculus and classical mechanics is North Europe, during the 17th century. What is the relationship between all these brilliant scientists and the mode of production in the countries of that part of Europe. Newton and Leibnitz developing Calculus, all of the Scientific activity in England especially. All of this happening while capitalism is gradually developing. That kind of thing. I really can't offer anything on it. Anbody know of a marxist history of science?

[Rawthentic]

What do you mean by history of science?

Historical materialism is a framework that can help us understand the development of society as it actually exists.

Marx has written extensively about history, which of course includes technological changes.

Have you checked out marxists.org? It's a great archive.

The relationship between the mode of production and how that influenced mathematical or scientific changes is not an issue I'm too familiar with either.

[Hit The North]

can you elaborate on how you view the relationship between the productive forces and technology?
Technology is a force of production.

[Rawthentic]

Bob:

Yes, I know that. I just asked this comrade to elaborate on what he was interested in.

[ckaihatsu]

"One will never arrive [at a historical analysis] by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory, the supreme virtue of which consists in being super-historical" [Marx 1877]


I don't claim the following to be exactly a *law*, in the algorithmic / heuristical sense, but it is my contribution to the *rationalizing* of historical forces, based on relative magnitudes. By throwing as many historical factors as possible onto the "shelves" one can get an overall sense of what contributed to a given historical event or period, from the balance of class forces all the way down to individual agents. It may also help to remind the researcher to include certain types of factors that may otherwise be overlooked.


History, Macro-Micro

http://tinyurl.com/2dafgr


Chris




--




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --