From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 04:50:27 EDT
I think that you are right Jerry when you say you must look at the forces that drive transitions. Graph theory just gives one an abstract framework with no content. I think that one could be more precise though than using the word forces, since that is a mechanical analogy which may not be quite appropriate - connotations of inertia, work done etc. It may be more appropriate to focus on dynamic feedback mechanisms which increase or reduce the probability of transitions. The question also has to be answered in the concrete. There is no general abstract solution. One needs a theory of the dynamics of individual modes of production, a concept of how combined ones interact and a theory of how these affect the superstructure of the state. Some transitions can be induced by highly conjuncture factors. For example the transition of the Russian empire out of the capitalist system and the establishment of the planned economy of the USSR, seems to have been critically dependent on WW I and the Russian military defeat by Austro/German imperialism. One can hypothesise that this was a probably outcome given the earlier defeat by Japan and the ensuing revolutionary crisis, but whether in the absence of an assassins bullet in 1914 it would have occurred is an open question. Clearly in classical communist doctrine, the key factor in the transition to socialism is war and the social disorder brought about by war. One can also plausibly argue that the development of early 20th century capitalism made wars more likely, and thus increased the number of socially disordered states and thus the chance that in one or another of them, workers revolutions would occur. Now this is a rather different model of transition from the one that you have to employ in thinking of the transition from feudalism to capitalism. In this case one is thinking of slow processes of growth of one mode of production within another, which when viewed close up, does not appear to be something probabilistic. It is only when one starts looking at international/intercontinental comparisons that one can start thinking of it in stochastic terms - the probability of China/Japan/Holland/North Italy undergoing a transition etc. So I think that if we are to progress the discussion we should focus on particular transitions arcs on the graph - and in view of their conjunctural relevance - I suggest we focus on the arcs below: capitalism => socialism socialism => capitalism socialism => communism communism => socialism capitalism => communism communism => capitalism I think that we can assign to all of these arcs some non zero probability flux, but some are obviously more probable than others, and we should have some theory of what makes one arc more probable than another. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Gerald A. Levy Sent: 29 September 2004 13:47 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: (OPE-L) explaining transitions among modes of production Hi Paul C. > Yes I agree this is an interesting question. I like to think of it in > terms either of graph theory or Markov transition theory. Each mode > of production is a node in the graph and the transitions between modes > are arcs. Associated with each arc is a transition flux which is the > probability of transition per unit time. > A system of this sort can have a preferential path of development and it is > this 'most likely' path of development that gives us a historical order. The > existence of this ordering appears retrospectively as progress. However > there may be other arcs on the graph, for example ones going from slavery direct > to capitalism which have lower, but non-zero probabilities of occurence. > What the history of the last 20 years should have taught us is that there > was a non-zero probability of transition from socialism to capitalism for > example. > If one views the modes of production as a graph with probability flux > lableled arcs then one has a somewhat richer structure than a unique > linear ordering. I'm going to pass from the question of whether the feudal mode of production was more 'advanced' that the slave mode of production to the more general issue that you discuss above (note change in 'subject line' for thread) because I think it is more interesting. I agree that a linear ordering, such as that presented by Marx as the summarization of his "general conclusion" in the "Preface" to _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_, is misleading and runs the risk of being simplistically interpreted.. Yet, for one to develop an alternative in which one "views the modes of production as a graph with probability flux labeled arcs" begs the central question, imo. That question is: what are the causal forces that determine the birthing and development of different modes of production and what are the forces which can explain the transition whereby modes of production that were once dominant are replaced (or surpassed?) such that other modes of production become dominant? While, if one wishes to model such a historical process statistically/mathematically one needs a statistical and mathematical method up to the task, the selection of a probabilistic method is only a 'shell' in which propositions about causal factors have to be identified (and, perhaps, tested). So, how would you identify the factors that cause there to be transitions from one dominant mode of production to another? Or, are there no general trans-historical factors leading to such changes and, therefore, the causes for change are different in each historical instance? Whether one uses graph theory or Markov transition theory, don't these questions have to be asked first? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Oct 02 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT