Driving force of history

[Dodo]

Well, seeing my thread on Marxism vs Institutionalism got no replies, I decided to ask a different question.
What is, from Marxist stance, the driving force of history? What drives change?

Now obviously, what I am looking for here is not "history is the product of class struggles". I am looking for a more in-depth answer.

We know that crucial material in interpreting history for Marxists are
*substructure-superstructure relations
*contradictions arising from production relations that gave birth to classed societies and their un-ending conflicting interests(and its political-social implications)
*social change happens as a result of revolutioanry change within the production relations and through its reflection to superstructure


Which brings me to the core of the question, which represents itself as something lacking within Marxism.
Technology and transformation of productive forces is the heart of all this change. That much is established. All the above changes are a results of quantitaive changes leading to a qualitative one within the production relations. Technology(the way the production is organized, handled, instituionalized and use of physical capital). But what changes technology?

What is the driving force of technological change? Does Marxism have a method in explaning technological change or incentives that drive the change?
Old-school, cold war dominated Marxist histography is quiet rigid in its push for "class war" explanations. It is quiet mechanistic in its exclusion of the human factor as far as I know. What about the role of subjective side?
I always felt like Marxism does not bother(nor need to bother) with the subjective side, what the people, culture and institutions do to drive change.

E.g, the subjective factor in European history had incentives to push for technological efficiency due to scarcity of labor as opposed to land(which can indeed be regarded as an objective condition and materialist interpretation). But this change did not happen in other societies of the world, especially a palce like China where conditions for industrial revolution was indeed existing.

What do you think?
(yes I am in a way using you guys for my paper as well)

[Leftsolidarity]

I'm a little confused about what exactly you're asking. Are you asking what Marxists think the driving force to update and constantly create more productive technology is or did I misunderstand?

If I'm understanding you, Marx/Engels touch on it in The Communist Manifesto briefly: "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society."

The capitalists always want better technology because it lets them produce more while not paying as many workers. Sam Marcy's "High Tech, Low Pay" talks about it in detail.

[Comrade #138672]

Capitalist competition creates the "incentive" for technological change.

[Dodo]

I'm a little confused about what exactly you're asking. Are you asking what Marxists think the driving force to update and constantly create more productive technology is or did I misunderstand?

If I'm understanding you, Marx/Engels touch on it in The Communist Manifesto briefly: "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society."

The capitalists always want better technology because it lets them produce more while not paying as many workers. Sam Marcy's "High Tech, Low Pay" talks about it in detail.

You actually are kind of on point. It is easy to see this from the European experience. Everything makes sense when we think of Marxist histography in Europe.

But when we are to think of Marxism as a universal method, why did the productive forces not revolutionize in the rest of the world despite the existance of conditions?
This is almost a 19th century debate material in a way.
Europeans did have an instituional framework after their struggles which made scientific development available.
Why was this not the case in China or in India? Or maybe not even in Roman Empire?

The problem we face here, with out primarily materialist interpretation is that the formed "hegemony" of the ruling classes can create a static situation where literally nothing happens since productive forces do not evolve at all.
Since there was a lack of development of productive forces/technology in these civilazations, despite the existance of conditions we can only lay the answer on "society" .
I personally do not believe Marxism has a trouble here as it actually does not reject the effect of subjective forces. As Marx himself pointed out:

“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.”

He also made his attitude on this vulgarism clear when he said he himself is not a Marxist in his other famous quote.

My point is, Marxism does not provide a clear methodological explanation of technological transformation. It is up to the "superstructure" whether it happens or not. Bourgeouis did it, it happened in Europe, the institutions that were formed made it avaialble. But it has not happened in rest of the world.
What I am asking is
a)Does Marxism leave the ground here and do not bother to explain the potential staticness within superstructure to transfrom productive forces?
b)Do you think Marxism is compatible with non-materialist interpretations that explain the change through subjetivity, e.g people's decisions...etc

I know its not a very clear question, it has to be understood in the context of competing metholodies of interpreting economic history and change.


Capitalist competition creates the "incentive" for technological change.

What about pre-capitalist mode of productions? Areas where industrial revolution did not occur until it was forced from top-down by diffusion of technology from west?

[Comrade #138672]

Technological change was slow then, precisely because the mode of production was pre-capitalist.

By the way, what do you mean when you say that the productive forces were not revolutionized in the rest of the world? Obviously they were; it just took a little longer.

[Dodo]

Technological change was slow then, precisely because the mode of production was pre-capitalist.

By the way, what do you mean when you say that the productive forces were not revolutionized in the rest of the world? Obviously they were; it just took a little longer.

When I say technology and productive forces, I am not referring only to machinery involved but also "way of doing things". Capitalism for instance is constantly investing both in its technological capital and "way of doing" things.
This not only did not happen in rest of the world but did not look like it was going to happen until west got into the game. For instance the Indian caste system was so powerful to allow a social structural transformation. In its historical context, it was established by the existing class relations back in whenever. But after that, as far as I know, there was no "inner" dynamic, a transformation of productive forces, a change in way of doing things, a trigger of open class conflict therefore a revolution happening until the British and their methods arrived.

How large can we be when it comes to timescale? Even in its dialectical context, there did not seem(again as far as I know) to be inner quantitative change especially in India.

Long-story short, the subjective aspect, the people who are a reflection of the material conditions, did not seem to do anything about it and acceot their fate. Unlike Europeans, they were not in search for "efficiency" or were they? Maybe I am getting ahead of myself.

I guess what I am looking for is a stronger theoretical framework for the society aspect like Gramsci's idea of "hegemony" as for why socialst revolution did not occur in Europe.

[ckaihatsu]

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)


[22] History, Macro Micro

http://s6.postimage.org/58kljbt2l/22_History_Macro_Micro.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/58kljbt2l/)

[Invader Zim]

The capitalists always want better technology because it lets them produce more while not paying as many workers. Sam Marcy's "High Tech, Low Pay" talks about it in detail.

Hmm... Not really. Capitalists are also wedded to existing superstructures from which they materially benefit. Emergent technology can undermine those structures or the methods employed by which they profit. The result is often a form of technological and bureaucratic inertia. Capitalists also tend not to be in favor of directed, speculative knowledge driven research - despite the fact that this research often provides the foundation for future business, managerial or technological research. It is usually left up to States for investment into that kind of research - research that does not necessarily have any obvious immediate gain.

Case in point? Research and development into alternative energy is still, very much, in its infancy, despite the rapidly approaching, if not passed, point of peak oil. Similarly, despite the growing threat posed by climate change, and the (very) long term potential profits from efficient sustainable energy, the energy industry has been locked into technological inertia and denial over the reality - and that will only change when the structural and material conditions force them into action.

[Dodo]

That is what I wanted to touch as well. The existing superstructure can entrench itself. It might even prevent productive forces from transforming to push for a qualitative change.

[Blake's Baby]

The feedback between substructure and superstructure is neither instantaneous nor seemless. Capitalism (and therefore capitalists) developed inside feudalism. The quantitative-qualitative changes you mentioned earlier would include the growing relative strength of the new European capitalist class in (say) the years AD1300-1700. At a certain point the 'quantity' of one thing ('amount' of capitalist economy in a feudal framework) changes to another thing ('capitalism') through a paradigm-shift, revolution, quantum jump, whatever. The bourgeoisie in England developed it economy for 300 years before it became involved in a war with the aristocracy; the existing feudal superstructure needed to be violently done away with (and it took a century before the aristocracy and bourgeoisie reached the compromise of a 'constitutional monarchy' as the state structure of the UK) precisely because it hindered the development of a new economic form (that is, liberal capitalism).

Bourgeois society is obviously a fetter on the development of socialist society but the difference between the rising power of the bourgeoisie and that of the working class is that though they were revolutionary in the dying years of feudalism, they were also an exploiting class - unlike the bourgeoisie, we don't have the opportunity to build our economic power inside the old system.