05/08/2010

class introduced us to the MoP, and its internal dynamics.

Marxism predicts that you can divide up history so it appears to be a distinct sequence of modes of production—each MoP is identified by its distinctive class structure, which has its own dynamics and its own contradictions.

the question that arises is whether the sequencing of these sets is random—or whether it has to occur in the way that it did.

if there is a 'link', then you have not only a theory of social forms, but also a theory of transitions. at its most ambitious, Marxism aspires not only to be a theory of MoP but also a theory of historical develompent.

the question for Marxists, then, is you have two 'regional' theories—are both equally plausible? is one of them more plausible than the other?

the verdict that Cohen tries to give is that the theory of 'directionality' is 'valid' theoretically. the core of Cohen's defence rides on the 'optimality' thesis (which imposes an extraordiarily strong constraint on HM—it insists that when any given MoP descends into crisis, the PR that replace the existing PR will be selected for the functionality wrt the further development of the PF).

the question that arises is whether this is plausible. for the selectional mechanism to work, of course, there has to exist a mechanism.

the verdict that Wright gives, of course, is a 'weak' version—they argue that the PR will be conducive.

Vivek argues that even this is not plausible—we have only a 'minimalist' HM that can be salvaged.

with this, the theory becomes so weak that it loses much of its 'explanatory' punch—the 'explanatory' punch now moves to claims re: “class struggle.” as the claims of canonical HM weaken, HM has now become a 'class-struggle'.

this does not mean that PF have no role. if that were the case, history would be a random walk.

does this bode ill for Marxism?

Vivek couldn't come up with a single reason that Marxism needs a theory of history.

there's not very much at stake here. for what Marxism is supposed to be, it's not clear that much is lost by not having a theory of history.

it's useful to clarify that Brenner's theory is not an 'open' theory—it is a 'production relations' determinism, but not 'productive forces' determinism.