In his theory class struggle plays a role
>analogous to that of genetic mutations in Darwinian biology -
>that is as a source of new variations in the relations of production.
>Different outcomes in class struggles produce different variations
>in the relations of production which are then subjected to selection
>pressures as they compete with other relations of production.
These new variations are fortuitous, unplanned effects of different outcomes of various class struggles? Is this what sustains the analogy to mutation? Is the reference to Brenner's transition theory implicit here in particular?
>Carling sees the competition between rival modes of production
>as involving both plain economic competition as well as
>political-military competition. Also, sometimes countries
>will adopt a different mode of production because it is
>perceived as leading to more developed forces of production.
>One thinks of Japan's decision under the Meiji Restoration to
>become capitalist in order to avoid cannibalization such as
>China had suffered.
Well mutations are not intentionally brought about.
Carling
>> > contends that he builds a stronger theoretical case
>> > by looking towards the later rather than the earlier
>> > Marx with an eye to Darwin rather than to Adam Smith.
I found rather interesting historian of archaeology Bruce Trigger's new book on Sociocultural Evolution. He tries to develop a somewhat (and quite unfashionable) linear theory of hisotry without basing it on the assumption that progress is somehow inherent in the world as the deist philosophers of the Enlightenment or 19th century evolutionists believed.
Just to take one example of how he attempts to provide a non teleological basis for a 'directional' theory of history:
"Another general feature of sociocultural evolution is the expanding scale and diversity of human interaction. Over time larger and more complexly integrated societies develop. These are able to affect the ecosystem more dramatically, influence much larger surrounding areas economically and culturally, and impose their will on smaller, less tightly integrated societies. The increasing capacity of technologically advanced societies to shape the development of neighboring, smaller scale ones, and often to absorb them completely, helps to impose a linear direction on sociocultural devleopment. Because of the increasing rates of technological and social change associated with more complex societes, there apears to be less oppty for significantly different types to exist alongside each other for long periods when a complex society is involved than when all societies are small scale." p. 208
yrs, rakesh