Marx and the Socialist means of Production

[Taboo Tongue]

It seems so foolish that the industrial revolution could bring about Capitalism, and also Socialism (or the 'first stage of communism'). From what I understand, it takes a new set of means of production to develop a new consciousness and a new society. So how could Marx think that Socialism would develop on the technology of his time? Maybe revolutionary optimism, or simply the lack of a crystal ball to see into the future?
To me, living in the early stages of the 21st century, it would seem much more reasonable for the advent and continued development of peer to peer file sharing and 3D printing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing), and naturally the forthcoming sharing of scanned 3D object files, to be the revolutionary change in the means of production that would allow for a new class of ex-proletarians to arise. It seems incorrect to think that people just like us will overthrow this system. We may rebel like the peasants of yesteryear, but won't it be a new class to force it's dominance upon the bourgeoisie? Just as the newly enlarged capitalist, not the old peasant, class has forced it's way on top.

Am I missing some large historical materialist concept here or, in a word, 'what gives'?

[Taboo Tongue]

Sorry but I have to bump this, I still think about this at least every other day.
Does anyone have a theory or even hypothesis?

[mikelepore]

So how could Marx think that Socialism would develop on the technology of his time?

I don't remember where I read it, but I recall that Marx and Engels believed that England was the most suitable country for socialism to begin, because of its degree of industrialization in their day. Therefore, for many other countries, they thought largely of revolution as the process to replace monarchies with republics, establishing better political conditions for further industrialization and eventually socialism. I think this was their hope for the German revolution of 1848.

I don't understand the remainder of your question. I hope you can rephrase it.

[Taboo Tongue]

I don't understand the remainder of your question. I hope you can rephrase it.

According to Historical Materialism it takes a new set of technologies to create new classes, and one of those new classes will displace the old ruling class. Not just the old oppressed classes, realizing they are oppressed. Right?

It took the advent of steam machinery for the Bourgeois to replace the Feudal Lords. The peasants knowing they were peasants and oppressed, did not lead to the next stage of society.

So then why would the proletariat, knowing they were the proletariat and oppressed, be the ones to overthrow the bourgeois---instead of a new class that controlled a new technology (just as the bourgeois did with the factory)?

Thank you

[mikelepore]

The workers already occupy and operate the industries entirely, but they don't yet operate them for themselves. They operate them according to the instructions of, and for the benefit of, people who live far away and make their instructions known by sending messages. The legal owners almost never enter the industries. Production already has the physical shape of socialism. The workers are the only productive social class, those who invent, build, operate, improve and repair all of the industries. Production is already a collective activity based on large numbers of workers cooperating with each other. The working class is the vast majority of the population, about ninety-nine percent of the population. The numerically small ruling class has power only because we have thoughtlessly inherited certain laws and traditions from the past. If any social class is going to change the administrative system to eliminate these contradictions, and enact a new system that corresponds to the physical facts, here is no one else who can possible do it except for the workers.

This is why the working class is the potentially revolutionary class, not because they know it or want it or feel like it, but because it is they who would materially benefit by revolutionary change, and there doesn't exist anyone else who can possibly do it. Who could change the system of planning other than those who know how to operate, and do operate, all of the equipment every day?


According to Historical Materialism it takes a new set of technologies to create new classes, and one of those new classes will displace the old ruling class. Not just the old oppressed classes, realizing they are oppressed. Right?

My interpretation is that the "new technology" can be centuries old, although it is continuously developing. The thing that is new is the fact that a particular class, which is now in a position to benefit economically by having a revolutionary change, is also now in the position to be successful at making a revolutionary change.


It took the advent of steam machinery for the Bourgeois to replace the Feudal Lords.

I've never heard that statement before. There were many new economic realities, including shipping companies trading across the oceans, new scientific methods in metallurgy and chemistry, new methods for weaving textiles, etc. The economic future was with those who invested capital, not with landlords. The power of the investors of capital grew until they were able to take political power away from the landlords and aristocrats. They forced the adoption of new political and economic institutions that would be more favorable to investors of capital.


The peasants knowing they were peasants and oppressed, did not lead to the next stage of society.

The peasants weren't in a position to benefit from the capitalist revolution. Why would the peasants want to fight for a system that would be more favorable to the owners of the factories and the shops in the cities?


So then why would the proletariat, knowing they were the proletariat and oppressed, be the ones to overthrow the bourgeois---instead of a new class that controlled a new technology (just as the bourgeois did with the factory)?

What new class can there be? There are the many who work but don't own, and the few who own but don't work. These two population groups are the principal players.

I don't understand your statement about the class that controls a new technology overthrowing the bourgeois. The class that controls all technology, including any newly invented forms of technology, IS the bourgeoisie, that is, those who own most of the capital.