-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Jay Gould in several places in his works uses the metaphor of the "tape of life." If, he suggests, we were to play that tape over again, and again, and again, it is reasonably certain that when the sun goes nova in a vew billion years all that will exist on earth to view the spectacle os a layer of gray-green algae. "Higher" life forms, far from being the logical or necessary emergence from life as it existed in the first billion years or so, were in fact highly unlikely. That we find ourselves here is the result of innumerable contingencies, none of which had a high probability. Provisional extension of this metaphor.
If we were to play the tape of human hisstory over again (starting, say, at 100,000BP) it is unlikely that the tape would produce capitalism. There is no linear history any more than there is a linearr movement in evolution. Contingency rules. Looking backeards, we can see that a potential of the anatomy of the ape was the anatomy of man: but that was only _ONE_ among innumerable potentials, all of which remained unrealiz3ed. Homo sapiens was necessary emergence from ramepithecus; in fact homo sapiens remained an unlikely culmination until very near the time of its actual emergence. Looking back on the great commercial civilizations that preceded capitalism we can see that in various ways they contained 'seeds' that might at some point be part of the generation of capitalism -- but capitalism was by no means a necessary consquence of earlier commercial civilizations; perhaps it was even unlikely. The "[rpductivity" that characterizes capitalism is a
hothouse development, in fact contraray to human welfare and the development of human productive capacity. It resultes only in the phenomenon of self-reproducing valuye, not in increased wealth.
Those whose intelligence is blunted by the Myth of Progress can see an insistence on contingency only as a perverse pessimism.
To be continued.
Carrol
^^^^^^ CB: To take the contrary on Carrol's whole argument, "progress" here is actually the same as "better adapted" or more rational mode of production , both for the organic species and the human modes of production. What _is_ likely at each level here ("lower"/"higher" life forms, genus homo/homo sapiens, primary human mode of production/capitalist mode of production) is that a better mode of adapting ,whether somatic or extrasomatic , in the long run , will emerge; unless extinction occurs.
Thus, now we can say along with Marx, Engels and Luxemburg that
socialism is inevitable (!) ;or socialism or babarism. That is , the better mode of adapting socialism over capitalism is probable, if not inevitable. This is really the essence of both Hegel's idea that "the rational is actual and actual is rational" and Darwin's thesis of natural selection. This is why Marx and Engels said that Darwin's thesis was their thesis in natural history. If we don't exterminate ourselves or get exterminated (like by a meteor hitting
or is it a comet ? )
the more rational form of adapting/mode of production,
socialism, will inevitably supercede capitalism. In other words, progress is inevitable, if life forms continue to exist at all.
I'd even say this is dialectical materialism given Hegel's "rational is actual ,actual is rational" idea.
For humans, our mode of production is part of our species being.