Marx, Brenner, Technology (Was Re: [lbo-talk] preferences)

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Wed Sep 17 08:04:24 PDT 2003



>
> Who or what would prevent people from designing,
> engineering and implementing complex systems?
>
>
> It seems to me that this is a part of human nature.
>
>
> How would this be prevented?
>

That is a bit facile. Humans invent technology to solve problems they have. Technological development was stagnant or exceedingly slow for most of human history. A peasant from Homer's time would probably have fit in with a peasnt from late 19th century Greece witha minimum of readjustment. It is capitalism that -- as one Karl Marx insisted -- waked the undreamt of productive forces slumbering in the lap of nature. This is the point of the much-maligned, Euro-centric, practically racist, dispicably rational choice, utterly contemptible Brenner thesis, which has only the merit of being true.

Now, does that mean that technical change would slow under socialism? Depends in part on whether the socialism is a market socialism. The one I advocate would be. In that case the incentives for technical change would remain ins ome ways similar to what they are under capitalism. That is why most of you reject market socialism. What about a nonmarket socialism like Marx's? (or Chuck's). Stanley Moore wrotea nice little book, reissued under the title Marx Against Markets, in which he agreres with Chuck, that Marx was wrong to think that the productive foreces would develop undser nonmarket socialism. That is because there would be little incentive to change; besides, change would disrupt the plan.

Moore argues that the effect on social wealth would be drastic enough that society would not be able to be productive enough to maintain socialism. That would be a problem with Chuck's idea -- a primitive society based on isolated communities at a low level of technical development would probably have private property, though not capiatlist markets -- a subsistance society of petty producers.

The point is not just the technology is fun and convenient, etc., but that (as Marx also remarked), it is related to the levelel and kind of social development. The hand mill gives you the feudal lord, the steam mill the industrial capitalist, the microchip . . .

Yours for technosocialism!

jks

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list