Re: Re: Historical Materialism FAQ

[Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Devine wrote:

> >Carrol Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > Sam allows for this metaphysics by the physicalism of his definition,
> > > in so far as he fails to see that the material "base" (keeping temporarily
> > > to this awkward base/superstructure metaphor) is primarily *not*
> > > the forces of production but the *social relations* of production.
> > >
> >
> >The forces of production (knowledge, tools and technology) are called
> >the 'base' because they set limits and constraints on the kinds of
> >social relations that can develop within a given society.

> My reading of this literature says that the "base" refers not to the
> "forces of production" but to both the forces and the relations of
> production, which are combined as the "mode of production." The nature and
> speed of development of the forces of production are largely determined not
> by scientists and engineers but by the profit-seeking drive that dominates
> the capitalist relations of production.

Yes, I was bending the stick somewhat by simply excluding forces
of production, but I think it worth while to do so because there is
so much fractured marxism (including some passages in Marx
himself) which so emphasizes forces of production as to in effect
eliminate class struggle as an engine of history -- eliminating history
itself to boot.

One of Marx's most famous blunders, for example, where he suggested
that the water wheel gives capitalism while the hand mill gave feudalism.
Everything about this is wrong. In fact the water wheel was imposed by
French feudal lords who sent their thugs around physically destroying
hand mills -- thus putting the peasantry more at the mercy of the feudal
lord, since they had to have their grain milled at the (water wheel driven)
mill owned by the lord. *Feudal relations of production* replaced the
hand mill (which favored the peasants) with the water wheel (which
favored the feudal lord). Were it not for changes in the relations of
production (which were *not* inevitable but contingent), feudalism
could have gone on for ever with the water wheel one of its great
props. It is only under capitalism that increases in the forces of production
become of great importance, since the competitive system drives the
capitalist to increasingly cheapen labor. There is no necessary tendency
of forces of production to increase whatever in pre-capitalist (or post-
capitalist) systems.

The world deserves about a 1000 year vacation from technological
growth. [ Bending the stick again. :-) ] But in any case, growth in
productive forces will be *chosen*, not imposed or automatic,
under socialism. And it is mostly silly to speak of socialism as
"unfettering the forces of production." That metaphor of "unfettering"
is the heart of all non-historical determinisms.

Carrol