on evolution again

[" George Snedeker" <snedeker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Charles Brown insists on our thinking about historical transformations from
one mode of production to the next as a form of "evolution." my problem is
with the analogy between the natural and social world this demands. it seems
to me that this form of reflection traps us in a reduction of the social to
the natural. what about the role of agency in this process. one could argue
that the process of natural selection lacks what we would call "agency." it
is a process without a subject, as Althusser might put it. human history is
a process with many subjects. this is why I object to his formulation.

we might say that capitalism was inevitable because it happened, but that
socialism is not inevitable because it might not happen. I have no problem
with viewing history as a process involving both necessity and contingency.
I would be among the last people to argue that history is pure contingency.
such an idea would make no sense. the problem is the role of human actors in
the process of social transformation.

there is a politics of representation. our language does influence the way
we think and act in the world. this is why I agree with Carol Cox's
objection to thinking of society as an organic whole. think of those dead
limbs we are about to chop off. all that blood and suffering. who will
decide which ones can be saved?

there is always a nonidentity between knowledge and being. I mean our
concepts never exhaust the reality we are trying to convey. this is why the
quasi scientific language of analytic Marxism  is no solution. I know that
Charles is not an analytical Marxist. I just thought I would throw them into
the soup too.

as for teleology, human history does not have a goal or telos. Charles is
right to argue that natural evolution does not have one either. however,
most theories of social evolution have been teleological. Marxism has often
been understood as having a teleological conception of history. just think
of the stages of development argument. this is why we need to be as clear as
possible about the process of social transformation.

George