Marx's Theory/Analysis of Change

[S.Artesian]

As you can see, I'm a little bit ambivalent about the "theory" label applied to Marx's work, as it leads, or misleads many into the discussion of Marxism as a "philosophy," or as "radical political economy," when those are two, among many, things that Marxism is not, and is not precisely.

Marx's work really does constitute an end to philosophy and to political economy in that Marx's work centers on the apprehension of the real content of history, and what drives the change in that content.

So... certain questions immediately present themselves regarding Marx's theory/analysis of change.... like what is that real content of history that Marx is exploring, how is that "core" made manifest in specific, in different, historical periods. what does Marx identify as the actual change, what are the drivers forcing, enabling, facilitating.. etc. such change, are the drivers necessarily connected or interconnected, is the connection random, accidental, coincidental or is the connection[s] necessary, determined, inherent, are there agents of change, and if so what makes these act-ers, act.

To the extent that we explore the answers to these and other questions, I would like them to be concrete-- relating to actual significant historical eruptions-- or non-eruptions; relating somehow to ongoing mechanisms and problems of accumulation, reproduction, etc. etc.

No offense to anyone, except to those who will take offense, but I don't want this to be a philosophical discussion, that is to say a discussion of "dialectics," as I have no desire to allow this thread to become yet another forum for our own Lady Gaga of the anti-dialectic, Rosa L, to proclaim that it's all, and always, about her.

In short, this is about [I]historical materialism, and how Marx transfers his insights into an explanation for the movement of history

[vyborg]

Marxism is above all a guide to action. It explores history and science from the point of view of a revolutionary class that wants to emancipate itself.

Its key methodological issues can be understood, in my opinion, in the German ideology, in 1857 Introduction (that is a bit complex) and, of course, in the major "mature" works of Marx and Engels.

The approach of marxists towards philosophy and social sciences is not to "end them" but a critical one. we must understand how and why they came out in a non mechanical relation whith the social conditions

[S.Artesian]

OK, but what are the drivers of change?

[vyborg]

what provokes a change in society? at the end of the day the development of the productive forces. but the way by which this development changes society is very very complex. technology, demography, cultural changes, anything is connected to it but in a non mechanical and non linear way

[S.Artesian]

To say it changes in a complex manner and everything is connected to it doesn't really get us into the driving forces. If the development of productive forces precipitates social change..how does that development do that; what is the measure by which we can observe/recognize/apprehend the change?

What is it about the development of the productive forces that quickens, or compels, social change?

I have my answers to those questions-- and that answer is that the existing organization of labor proves inadequate to the development of those productive forcees.

An example: The emergence of the civil rights struggle in the US South was determined by the transformation of Southern agriculture during WW2 [and after] through extensive mechanization. The technical inputs required an organization of labor, an access to labor free of the restrictions of tenant-farming/share-cropping.

The quantitative change in Southern agriculture required a different organization of labor; it required at one and the same time, the dispossession of the tenant-farmers and share-croppers, the concentration and centralization of capital, it required access "free" labor, which it could engage and expel at will, something that could not be accomplished under Jim Crow.

We can add to that, the migration of black labor into the cities and industries of the North, and South, the impact of the African-American WW2 veterans upon returning and confronting Jim Crow-- but these are all facets of the same process, which is the conflict contained in the very heart of accumulation; at the very core of the development of the productive forces.

[vyborg]

I think the example is very apt. Social changes are of different kinds but at the end, they all induce a development of the productivity of labour, otherwise they are useless to humankind. dialectically, this development push for other changes and so on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


No offense to anyone, except to those who will take offense, but I don't want this to be a philosophical discussion, that is to say a discussion of "dialectics," as I have no desire to allow this thread to become yet another forum for our own Lady Gaga of the anti-dialectic, Rosa L, to proclaim that it's all, and always, about her.

1) Where have I claimed it's all about me? Or even implied it? [But, we already know you prefer to fib.]

2) You are the one who mentioned me. So, it's you who are obsessed with little old me.

[Dave B]

What drives forward evolutionary social and economical change is the survival of the fittest and most efficient. As the new or evolving socio-economic system is ‘better’ than the existing one.


Better in a concrete or material way as opposed to any ‘moralistic’ perspective.


A concrete example would be what happened to the ‘natives’ of North America and their socio-economic system.


Thus the ‘spirit’ that gives direction to change and propels it forward is brutal, and competitive, materialistic efficiency.


Culture and ideology adapt themselves to the ‘better’ way of doing things as either a ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ or at the end of the barrel of a gun.



Looking for allegories elsewhere.



Pure science, when it isn’t adulterated by economic considerations, is driven forward by the objective search for explanatory and predictive systems to understand the material world or the truth I you like.



And they rise and fall within their own community on that basis.

Whilst science is invariably mixed in with materialism and finding better ways of doing stuff.


For many the motivating spirit that moves it forward and changes it is just a fascination or curiosity about what makes things the way they are.


It could be just a useful natural instinct for an animal that fits into an ecological niche of living by its wits and adaptability to various environments.

I think Hegels contribution was that things don’t stay the same and change occurs and change requires a cause (which he attributed to a ‘spirit’).


Making ‘inferences’ about the nature of the ‘spirit’ from the way it affected change in as much as there was an observable pattern or direction.

A bit like Darwin.


The basic idea that change requires a cause, not exactly rocket science when you put it like that, is just another way of expressing cause and effect, or as demonstrated in Newton's first law;

Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.


....

[red cat]

What drives forward evolutionary social and economical change is the survival of the fittest and most efficient. As the new or evolving socio-economic system is ‘better’ than the existing one.

I will just add that the notion of being "better" can be having a more advanced military force as well.

[S.Artesian]

I will just add that the notion of being "better" can be having a more advanced military force as well.


And I will argue, later, that "better" has nothing to do with it, either in Marxist analysis, or in evolutionary analysis-- although I don't want to debate evolution.

More later..

[Communist]

Hey, Rosa, drop fucking dead, cop. You have nothing to contribute to historical materialism.

Any unrestricted member can contribute to any thread they wish to, if it's kept civil and on the subject.
Everyone stick to the topic. Thank you.

.

[S.Artesian]

What drives forward evolutionary social and economical change is the survival of the fittest and most efficient. As the new or evolving socio-economic system is ‘better’ than the existing one.


Better in a concrete or material way as opposed to any ‘moralistic’ perspective.


A concrete example would be what happened to the ‘natives’ of North America and their socio-economic system.


Thus the ‘spirit’ that gives direction to change and propels it forward is brutal, and competitive, materialistic efficiency.


Culture and ideology adapt themselves to the ‘better’ way of doing things as either a ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ or at the end of the barrel of a gun.



Looking for allegories elsewhere.



Pure science, when it isn’t adulterated by economic considerations, is driven forward by the objective search for explanatory and predictive systems to understand the material world or the truth I you like.



And they rise and fall within their own community on that basis.

Whilst science is invariably mixed in with materialism and finding better ways of doing stuff.


For many the motivating spirit that moves it forward and changes it is just a fascination or curiosity about what makes things the way they are.


It could be just a useful natural instinct for an animal that fits into an ecological niche of living by its wits and adaptability to various environments.

I think Hegels contribution was that things don’t stay the same and change occurs and change requires a cause (which he attributed to a ‘spirit’).


Making ‘inferences’ about the nature of the ‘spirit’ from the way it affected change in as much as there was an observable pattern or direction.

A bit like Darwin.


The basic idea that change requires a cause, not exactly rocket science when you put it like that, is just another way of expressing cause and effect, or as demonstrated in Newton's first law;

Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed.


....

First, I’d like to say that not only is Marx’s analysis of the drivers of change not “a bit like Darwin” regarding the evolution to a “better” state or form, but even Darwin isn’t a bit like Darwin—or more correctly, even evolution is not like the popular views of evolution.


Evolution makes no material determination of “better,” with all its connotations of “progress” and development of an organism. There is in fact no notion of “better” or “material” efficiency built into evolution. There is adaptation, and only adaptation to specific environments, environments that may change gradually, or suddenly, from long term forces, or from “random” events.


The “material efficiency” that survives is blind, dumb, ignorant and may very well amount to a regression in the capabilities of the organism to evolve the next time circumstances change; the adaptations may limit the ability of the organism to expand the portion of the environment it inhabits; the adaptation may confine it to an isolated location, an isolated moment in time.


Obviously, adaptation entails a condition of “more,” a comparison, but it is not an improvement in the organism itself, rather an improvement based on the changed environment. It is an adaptation not an "improvement."


Regarding concrete example of the indigenous peoples of the Americas—I think that’s a fine example how indeed there is not a “better” even in terms of production of wealth or material efficiency inherent in the transformation or historical change in social systems.


The conquest of Mexico provided no improvement in the wealth producing capability of society as the devastation inflicted on the indigenous people crippled the conquerors themselves. More than 90 percent of the indigenous people of Mexico were wiped out by the end of the 16th century.



This extermination was part and parcel of the transposition of the Spanish mercantile-monarchist alliance onto the conquered people, but more than that, the transposition was of a social order that was in fact less productive, less materially efficient, but much more extractive than those it destroyed.

So………I think we need to leave out “progress,” and “material efficiency” from our interpretations of Marx’s analysis. Progress and material efficiency may be part of the transformation, but they may not be. Progress and material efficiency are not inherent, IMO, in Marx’s analysis of change—until we get of proletarian revolution, and the end to the separation of labor from the conditions of labor; until we get to the point where need is value, rather than value is the need.


What I think is clear in Marx’s analysis of capitalism is the historical driver of change is the social relation of production itself in that that social relation contains both the “creation” of the economy, and the immanent tendencies, potential, for its overthrow. Indeed, in Marx’s work I think “potential” is intended to include necessity as the essential immanent tendency for the overthrow of capitalism.


There is in Marx’s Economic Manuscripts of 1861-1863 a passage on the "General Law of the Fall in the Rate of Profit" where he writes: “It is therefore clear that in competition, once the monopoly in the new invention has come to an end, the price of the product is reduced to its production costs.”


To me, this is perhaps the most brilliant condensation of the self-contradiction of capital, and the driver to its history. It is of course the difference between the cost of production and the price of production that represents the aggrandized surplus value of capitalism. Yet, in its very augmentation of surplus value, in its very accumulation of surplus value as capital to expand the reproduction of surplus value, capital brings the cost price and production price towards an identity where, no matter how much the mass of surplus value there is, as a proportion of the total social product, it disappears.

Now that’s some big-ass change going on.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


To me, this is perhaps the most brilliant condensation of the self-contradiction of capital, and the driver to its history. It is of course the difference between the cost of production and the price of production that represents the aggrandized surplus value of capitalism. Yet, in its very augmentation of surplus value, in its very accumulation of surplus value as capital to expand the reproduction of surplus value, capital brings the cost price and production price towards an identity where, no matter how much the mass of surplus value there is, as a proportion of the total social product, it disappears.

But why is this a 'contradiction'?

This would be:


“It is therefore clear that in competition, once the monopoly in the new invention has come to an end, the price of the product is and it isn't reduced to its production costs.”

Or this:


“It is and it isn't therefore clear that in competition, once the monopoly in the new invention has come to an end, the price of the product is reduced to its production costs.”

But the comment you posted seems non-contradictiory to me.

[S.Artesian]

This is not a discussion of the meaning of "contradiction." This is a thread investigating, as stated in the first post how Marx uses his insights to analyze historical transformation.

So if you have something concrete to say about the impact of the conquest on the indigenous peoples of Mexico, about the relative productivity and material efficiency of the Spanish mercantile-monarchy system vs. that of the Aztecs, or of the other indigenous people of Mexico, please do so.

If you have something concrete to add about such comparisons of any social organizations of labor, feel free to do so.

If you have an a different insight into how capital becomes a barrier to its own expanded reproduction, how intensified accumulation restricts accumulation, how the aggrandizement of greater relative proportions of surplus value creates a condition where surplus value cannot be realized, or insights into where and how the cost and price of production converge-- the actual closing of the scissors that has been the primary mechanism for accumulation--- then please do so.

If you have nothing to contribute along these lines, then please respect the subject focus of thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


This is not a discussion of the meaning of "contradiction." This is a thread investigating, as stated in the first post how Marx uses his insights to analyze historical transformation.

Well, you (not me) are the one who used this word, and without telling us why the example you gave is a 'contradiction', when it plainly isn't.

Now, I have no objection to your 'concrete' analysis (indeed, I agree with much of it), but I will continue to intervene here if you keep using this word in such a way.

[S.Artesian]

As stated before, if you have something to contribute concretely, if you have a concrete disagreement about Marx's theory or the fact that accumulated capital becomes the obstacle to the accumulation of capital, please feel free to post it.

If, however, you have nothing to contribute concretely, if you have no concrete disagreements, if you want to play the part of the "vocabulary police," then your intervention amounts to nothing but trivialization of the issues; to trivialization of Marx's analysis of the relations between labor and property, between means and relations of production.

Let's move on. Any thoughts on Marx's analysis of historical transformation? It's fundamental forces? How those forces are made manifest, concretely, in society, say for example with the situation in Bolivia between 1952 and 1964 when the MNR and its "national revolutions" were in power, or perhaps the driving forces of the transformation embodied in the Mexican Revolution of 1910? Or perhaps South Africa, and the deal the apartheidists made with Mandela.. or the eruption of the anti-apartheid struggle in the mines with the growth of the National Union of Miners and the Congress of South African Trade Unions?

[S.Artesian]

I don't intend to waste any more time feeding Rosa's infantile narcissism so I have placed her on my ignore list, which saves me from reading her inane, self-aggrandizing, trivialization of Marx's work.

I might suggest others do that as well, but suit yourself.

As I was saying, their is a deep connection between Marx's work in the Grundrisse, the Economic Manuscripts, Capital and his analysis of change. In fact, it is his connection to historical change, his analysis of social struggles, that drives him to explore the actual mechanisms of the accumulation of capital.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

'Comrade' Artesian:


I don't intend to waste any more time feeding Rosa's infantile narcissism so I have placed her on my ignore list, which saves me from reading her inane, self-aggrandizing, trivialization of Marx's work

Once more, you are the one who mentioned a word you haven't yet explained -- "contradiction" --, not me.

[Communist]

'Comrade' Artesian:
Once more, you are the one who mentioned a word you haven't yet explained -- "contradiction" --, not me.

Rosa noone owes you an explanation for a word if they don't want to give one so you can further argue about it. Why would you even want to do this? It is ridiculous. Either get into the discussion or get out of it. Any more needless trolling will result in the usual warnings.
I hope there's no need to intervene in this thread again.

.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

^^^Sure they don't have to, but it's up to me to point out that this word has yet to be given an explanation -- and we have only been waiting for 200 years.

Just as I can ask whoever uses this word why they are calling things that manifestly aren't contradictions, 'contradictions'.

[Dave B]

By the way Engels in particular later complained that too much emphasis was placed on the economic or materialistic side of things by people who adopted their theory.


And that these people ignored the fact that the economic imperative acted on and reacted with already pre-existing ideologies and cultures etc that could and would reproduce subtly different effects and rates of development etc.etc.


Anyway the following letters may be of interest.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25a.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/letters/94_01_25a.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21.htm)


....

[S.Artesian]

By the way Engels in particular later complained that too much emphasis was placed on the economic or materialistic side of things by people who adopted their theory.


And that these people ignored the fact that the economic imperative acted on and reacted with already pre-existing ideologies and cultures etc that could and would reproduce subtly different effects and rates of development etc.etc.

....

No doubt. The development of capitalism in England is different than that of France, or Spain. What we get with Marx is the demonstration that economics is truly concentrated history, and history is the "differential" in the social organization of labor.

In vol 3 of Capital, Marx reiterates what he wrote in Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, where he had previously reiterated what he and Engels had written in The German Ideology-- that the expansion of capital becomes more or less meaningless without continuous re-expansion-- capital is, after all, self-expanding value; and that the very basis for increasing the aggrandizement of surplus value becomes an obstacle to the re-expansion of capital. The accumulation of the means of production conflicts with the relations of production, with the property form encapsulating those means, which is the social organization of labor.

The "theoretical" basis for Marx's investigations into specific struggles [for example, The Class Struggles in France, The 18the Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte], is realized "after the fact" of those investigations, as is only appropriate for a social materialist, in volume 3, particularly in chapter XV, "Unraveling the Internal Contradictions of the Law."

It, this fact Marx's work, is a bit like discovering the weapon after you've already use it.