Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Famous
I would say that that way of thinking was also heavily influanced by Hegel. I think it is only possible to shift to a communist society when the technology and forces of production to enable it are there. I dont think Marx is a prophet or that we should think he laid down a blueprint for exactly how the future will be, just that he was able to see forces of history that have lad and will lead inevitably to certain forms of society.
It is possible for societies to fall behind the progress of others certainly, and with an effort, societies may even be able to regress or go back a stage, to a agricultural feudalist society if there was a really determined effort to do it, but what I do believe is that when you have forced of production that reach a certain level, capitalism not only is no longer a logical system of economy, but an inpractical one that simply cannot cope. This is when the revolution is made.
if their may be further stages of human development beyond communism, we cannot say it is impossible, but I personally cannot see far enough ahead to judge that.
|
We're on the same page, I was using terms that most readers here would associate with Marx's ideas.
However, I want to caution you not to reify the economic structure. I don't agree with the assertion that there are inevitable processes that will lead us to change--your comment speaks to the issue I raised in reference to a Darwinian paradigm.
I don't disagree that change will occur, but humans must actualize it--natural forces will not compel it--and they must do so by consensus. This is a confusion that even Marx may not have resolved himself. Or, his interpretors may not be able to distinguish how he felt about it since he emphasized different points in various stages in his life. It would be strangely curious if he reified change given that he was so adament that we not do the same to commodities!
Given that, there are more current readings of his work that argue he was more dialectical in his assumptions regarding the link between ideology and structure; that is, it wasn't as uni-directional as previously held (and you posted earlier). Ideology does influence structure more than classical interpreters have assumed Marx wrote--and that presumption is hopefully becoming more widespread. Of course, this speaks to the Hegelian influence you cited.
I don't know your education and I don't want to knock you--your posts are very interesting to me. You sometimes mix theoretical assumptions in your explanations, however, and drift from one model to another. It isn't highly problematic to the readers who are familiar with the sources because we can see you struggling with (often) inane and entangling questions, but people who aren't familiar with the concepts pick up on that drift and interpret it as inconsistency.
Keep in mind that what we now recognize as "primative" societies are actually very equitable, so I don't think conceiving them as throwback or digressive societies is very helpful. Furthermore, some of the societies I was referring to never "developed" out of share based economies, it's not that they once did and went "backwards."
I think a more palpable notion (in time) would be aggressive (or progressive) taxation of the wealthy as a means to "seize" their assets rather than a relyance on force. This might clear up how a "revolution" can occur in a non-violent way. This also may allay the very strong critique that Marxism was an ideology directed at the working class to overthrow the ruling class--that he didn't
necessarily care for the underclass.
But that would be interesting to speculate as to whether there can be human progression beyond communism since, according to Marx, it allows us to return to our natural order and reach our most creative potential (our species-being or what most people might better understand as enlightenment).
Have you read Weber's work?