Even if there was a trend trend of biological speciation toward complexity (which the evidence does not show), it would not mean that social life must follow the same pattern.

Even a quick glance at a cladistic sketch of current domains and phyla would indicate a complexity that has emerged over time. I think you are confusing the question of whether the current schema is a necessary outcome of the initial beginnings — which is to say that, for example, lions, tigers and humans must or must not descend from the first nucleic bacteria — with whether the current phylogenetic array is complex or not. It clearly is.

Even among bacteria there is more diversity now than existed two weeks ago, let along 2,000,000,000 years ago.

Human social life, which is contingent upon biology but not completely dependent upon it, is also complex. And over time, every society generally trends toward a greater degree of complexity. Why? Because we develop new social practices, we acquire new understanding, our cohorts grow numerically, etc.

There is no stasis in human cultures, that’s one reason we are so interesting to talk to…

Relative to the conventional view of life’s history as an at least broadly predictable process of gradually advancing complexity through time, three features of the paleontological record stand out in opposition and shall therefore serve as organizing themes for the rest of this article….

…Moreover, we do not know why most of the early experiments died, while a few survived to become our modern phyla. It is tempting to say that the victors won by virtue of greater anatomical complexity, better ecological fit or some other predictable feature of conventional Darwinian struggle. But no recognized traits unite the victors, and the radical alternative must be entertained that each early experiment received little more than the equivalent of a ticket in the largest lottery ever played out on our planet – and that each surviving lineage, including our own phylum of vertebrates, inhabits the earth today more by the luck of the draw than by any predictable struggle for existence. The history of multicellular animal life may be more a story of great reduction in initial possibilities, with stabilization of lucky survivors, than a conventional tale of steady ecological expansion and morphological progress in complexity. …

…One might grant that complexification for life as a whole represents a pseudo-trend based on constraint at the left wall but still hold that evolution within particular groups differentially favors complexity when the founding lineage begins far enough from the left wall to permit movement in both directions. Empirical tests of this interesting hypothesis are just beginning (as concern for the subject mounts among paleontologists), and we do not yet have enough cases to advance a generality. But the first two studies – by Daniel W. McShea of the University of Michigan on mammalian vertebrae and by George F. Boyajian of the University of Pennsylvania on ammonite suture lines – show no evolutionary tendencies to favor increased complexity. ….

http://brembs.net/gould.html

Of course, I think the temptation also has to be resisted to think that, as biological selecton and speciation goes, so much social organization. They’re really different things. Even if there was a trend trend of biological speciation toward complexity (which the evidence does not show), it would not mean that social life must follow the same pattern. So I guess just because the biological record doesn’t, it may still be that social organization still does.

However, as Nando points out, the social history provides barely more evidence for this than the biological history. What we’ve got is what has _happened_, it is true, but it was not inevitable, and neither will be whatever happens next.

I have to agree with Eddy here.

My particular take on this is informed by Stephen Jay Gould who cautioned against conflating complexity with “progress” or assuming that things with greater complexity had greater intrinsic value than things with less complexity.

It is also a fruit of, and a response to, other important factors: the restoration of capitalism in the SU in the mid-fifties; the loss of China to a revisionist coup in 1976. Bottom line, there are no countries in the world today that stand as the beacons, inspirations, bastions, alternatives that these countries once were. This has been absent from the reality of planet Earth for nearly 34 years!

The Soviet Union was a social-imperialist country for some 45 years before its collapse. This created great difficulties for the cause of communism, not to mention Stalin’s very harmful methods and approaches, even when it was socialist. It was such a liberating thing when Mao rescued communism with his greatest of contributions, and fresh new life was given to this cause internationally. Revolutionary China was a profound answer and had great influence. This is just by way of saying that state power, as humanity has been witness to, can be a huge global influence on hopes, optimism and a grasp of possibilities. It can be a formidable material force. And the fact that we had it, and lost it, has been a major factor in the calling into question of communism as a viable possibility by such trends as “post modernism”.

In addition, on the heels of the collapse of the SU (again, it was a social-imperialist country for decades until then), a daunting ideological offensive proclaiming the “death of communism” and the “triumph of capitalism” was waged. This narrative rained down relentlessly from many powerful quarters and reaches, and has continued to dog humanity for twenty years. It is now the conventional wisdom, the accepted summation generally speaking, with notable exceptions. “Post modernism” is a fruit of, and a response to, this as well.

Another fruit of all this has been a trend toward revisionism, vanguards and leaders capitulating to the siren song of “bourgeois democracy”, a lowering of sights, abandoning of dialectical materialism, and the gravitating toward eclecticism, agnosticism and relativism (have I left anything out?), with notable exceptions.

Meanwhile, our “little friend”, the fundamental contradiction, goes on about its insidious business, extending its “dementor’s clutch” everywhere in the world, through globalization, technology, taking on new forms, routing everything in its grasp into the circuits of capital accumulation. Its blind, life-devouring dynamic is relentless. It is a busy monster which is now threatening global devastation. Yet, through the workings of this very dynamic, the basis, the real possibility for its own destruction gets conjured up. “Imperialism is doomed because it always does evil things”. (Mao) This is not inevitable (as Mao’s statement might be simplistically interpreted), but it does speak to a fundamental truth. The international proletariat-as-gravedigger is a fundamental truth as well. But, can’t be done without making this the common cause for the overwhelming mass of humanity. Obviously, this too is an ultimate assessment, and can’t be done other than through many twists, turns, advances, setbacks, etc.

In the present worldwide milieu, there is a great need to advance as far as possible toward the resolution of the fundamental contradiction.

The responsibility for realizing this crying need rests squarely on the shoulders of the communist vanguards. Reinvisioning is imperative. But this can only be a genuine and true reinvisioning if based on synthesis.

It is a very difficult challenge, but the material basis is there, without a doubt. The question is can the vanguards and their leaders fill the great needs?

but none the less, that’s no reason to toss out dialectics.

the history of life certainly DOES indicate a trend toward complexity, but perhaps not in the way its been described here.

Yes, this is a ‘bacterial planet’ but not the same bacterial planet at the point of 4 billion years ago, a much more complex – ecologically and phylogenetically one. Multicellular organisms are more complex than unicellular organisms. colonies are more complex than a stew of loosely assembling molecules.

Human societies have trended to become more complex over time, first numerically and then structurally. That is how we have developed our facility for symbolization, higher cognitive abilities, various social practices. I don’t see why one would argue that point and continue to type on a computer.

There are of course various limits and tipping points and countervailing forces, internal and external; dialectical relationships that are to be considered. As M&E noted in their manifesto, for example, mutual ruin is also an option in class struggle.

The fact that globally the totality of human society is not one whole but a diversity of types is not an argument against complexity. Actually it rather indicates that complexity (of types).

The argument here ought to examine the relationship of consciousness and social practice — to paraphrase Gordon Childe (who was not all bad), ‘humanity makes itself’.

And, this is even more stark when posed in sharp relief against vast, socialized means and forces at hand in the world today, which offer up for humanity, more than ever before, perhaps unprecedented opportunities to make great strides toward putting an end to the epoch of class society, toward ultimately breaking all chains and constraints on humanity (in the most sweeping sense).

And, the most crucial element of these vast forces, the international proletariat, the only class that can be the backbone of the struggle to take humanity to a whole different world, is objectively in a far greater strategic position (materially) to make significant strides toward that future.

The above is a shorthand sketch of the “anarchy/organization” manifestation of the fundamental contradiction. Below is, to the best of my understanding, a sketch of the “class struggle” manifestation of the fundamental contradiction:

In a very real way, the first round of the communist revolution represented the first steps toward resolving the fundamental contradiction. The process of transforming the means of production into the common property of an increasingly conscious collectivity of human beings was begun in earnest. It emerged through earth shaking revolutions and carved out significant territory for something entirely different. Great transformations were made toward that end. Even though defeated by counterrevolution (in Paris, the Soviet Union, China), and even with some serious problems in how these harbingers of the future were led, this fact cannot be denied. At the same time, the “death of communism” onslaught of “triumphal capitalism” over the past two decades has led to widespread and serious lowering of sights, pessimism, and abandonment, with notable exceptions.

There is an urgent need, here and now, for communists to put the resolution of this contradiction
into the hands of all who must be called on to take part in resolving it. Put it in their hands, front and center, hold forth with the liberating vision of what this revolution can bring into being, and what it will finally bury, and in so doing, kick open the door to the revolutions that call out to be made, in the service of and in the course, of remaking the world.

The responsibility of realizing the process of the proletariat becoming the class conscious leader of human emancipation rests squarely on the shoulders of its communist vanguards across the planet. This is a profoundly international and internationalist calling. Communism should be made the common cause for humanity broadly. People are lifting their heads to seek fundamental answers.

This is, absolutely, in no way a simple matter (although resolving the fundamental contradiction is a relatively simple concept). It is not inevitable: capitalism has not only proven to be stronger and more resilient than any of the leading communist theoreticians could foresee, it has, at this stage of things, shown that it can potentially bring lasting, catastrophic devastation to the planet, and the current, deadly trajectory of global warming is an alarming illustration of that.

“Once the inner connection is grasped, all theoretical belief in the permanent necessity of existing conditions breaks down before their collapse in practice.” (Marx)

This is, roughly, and in simple terms, where optimism lies. The hope that as communist theory is grasped by the masses, it becomes a material force to change the world. Let’s get digging.

Okay, so where DO ‘we’ get our optimism from? Is there cause for optimism, and if so what is it? Or is it the right question to ask about ‘optimism’ in some grand sense; no doubt there are causes for both optimism and pessimism at any given time, including now. Some times may have fewer causes of optimism than others.

I guess when some people ask this question, they mean: If it’s not inevitable, then what makes us even think we can possibly win? Either inevitability or existential pessimism, I guess.

I don’t know the answers to these questions.

If victory is not inevitable, this means it’s up to all of us, which is kind of scary.

The fallacy of historical directionality is a really important point, I think. In some anarchist thought, you see that sort of fallacy in pining for the ‘primitive’ imagined hunter-gatherers, as if current indigenous people (or Western imagination of them) represent pre-historic people somehow time-travelled here. I appreciate your comment about how any culture in the 21st century has exactly the same amount of history as the rest of us, they are not time-travellers. (In the case of one particular mythologized contemporary-ish hunter-gatherer culture, there is a compelling argument that that very culture were pastoralists 200 years ago, and _changed_ to largely hunter-gatherers due to causes related to ecology, colonial globalization, and others).

Our future is unwritten and has no inevitability about it. Which is not to say that we are not constrained by material conditions. What exists now (and what path got us here) determines what happens next to some extent — but if it determines it absolutely, it is not in our current power to predict what that absolute is. We’ve got to judge the lay of the land, and figure out the best way to move where we want to go, not where we are pre-ordained to go.

B] words are concepts that have theoretical values and also are in a constant mode of deepening [consolidating and rectifying] from a proletarian problematic. The RCP conceptual definition of the masses is quite populist. I argue and insist, the masses and to some extent the people’s camp are classes and fractions of classes that have a common interest against the dominant classes, in particular capitalism. In fact, during the Chinese revolutions on class analysis of the Chinese social formation, the National Bourgeoisie was considered temporarily as part of the people’s camp but not part of the fundamental masses. One of the important contributions of Mao is to identify the fundamental popular classes. These are fundamental allies in the struggle against capital. The working class, some fractions of the peasantry such as poor peasants, landless peasants, dispossessed peasants, the lower strata of the petit bourgeoisie are fundamental allies in the struggle against capital, but also are fundamental allies in the struggle to build socialism from the political line of New Democracy a sharp demarcation from the revisionist line of the two stages.

C] Any definition of the popular masses, the people’s camps negating the leadership role of the proletariat is also populism. In one in my posting on China and Vietnam, not diminishing these experiences, I have argued a populist line dominantly guided both experiences.

D] the role of the working class/ the proletariat is not quantitative but qualitative. In fact, in the history of class struggle, no social classes have had[yet] the privilege to lead from a majority position. Te feudal class was a minority, the capitalist class is a minority, and the hegemonic class in the capitalist power block is also a minority. Mao correctly addresses this point in theory. He defines the peasantry as the principal force [quantitative] in China and the working class as the leadership role [qualitative]. The class alliance, which resulted to the independence of Haiti, was an alliance of the slaves [the principal force] and free slaves as the leadership force and the free slaves were a minority. In all types and forms of capitalist society, the problematic of proletarian revolution, under the leadership, of the working class, must be the order of the day.

F] Working class is not an ideological marker for communism. This argument will be populist and ideological marker for workerism. In order for the working to emancipate, the appropriation of his theory, from a fusion process needs to be achieved. There can’t be emancipation without appropriation. We need to construct the practical conditions allowing us to have the fusion of revolutionary theory with the working class movement…

———- (1) ———-

First, I will reply to Nando:

The discussion here has been whether there is a general tendency in class society toward communism.

And it includes a discussion of whether there is a general tendency (at each point) in class society toward “higher” forms.

The discussion is more than that, as shown by the title you gave it: “Does Our Optimism Require Belief in Communism’s Inevitability?”

This title, by itself, indicates that the main focus of the thread is our current society. In other words: Is it inevitable that our current society will inevitably be transformed into a classless society? If the thread were focused more on Roman or Mayan society–then this topic would (presumably) have less of an impact on our optimism.

But all of this talk of general tendencies does require a sweep of history. You may not want to talk about the past. That is fine. But then just don’t make claims or assumptions about the past or the general sweep of history.

I usually find it useful to talk about the past. The main exception is on threads in which one or more of the main actors is so focused on the past that there is little attention left over for the present and the future. We struggle to understand the world for the purpose of changing it. This requires a focus on the present and future. We study the past to inform our understanding of the present and future.

I did attempt to give perspective by using the analogy of salmon. Someone might say that the tendency of a salmon hatchling is to (1) grow to become an adult salmon. Someone else might say that the tendency of a hatchling is to (2) be eaten while it is still young and small. From a statistical point of view, it is the second view which is overwhelmingly likely. Yet we understand (most of us, anyway) that it is the first view that (in spite of its statistical unlikelihood) best expresses the tendency of a salmon hatchling as the result of the development and interplay of its internal contradictions.

I laid out what I consider to be a scientific argument for why our society will inevitably be transformed into a classless society. There were basically two parts to my argument:

(1) Modern society is, over the long run, moving in the direction of a higher productivity of labor and

(2) The capitalist mode of production contains a fundamental limit in the growth of the productivity of labor because it restricts the flow of information (ie: essentially, conscious human energy) necessary for the most rapid improvement of the production process.

My second point is not really new in content but is (I believe) new in the way it expresses this fundamental limit of the capitalist mode of production: as a restriction on the flow of information.

I had somewhat hoped that you would comment on the second point (ie: the part that was new–at least in the form of its expression–certainly something not expressed in that form by the Comintern). Instead you seem to be stuck at the first point (ie: the part that no one, from any political trend, disputes). You do not deny or attempt to refute that modern society in characterized by a general trend toward the ever-increasing productivity of labor. Rather, you appear to argue that this is somehow irrelevant (ie: because all this productivity could be reversed by nuclear war or ecological crisis).

But to argue like this (it seems clear to me) is to insist on moving the thread in an unproductive direction. What activists today need, more than anything else, is to better understand the development of society as it will be under more “normal”, simple and preferable circumstances (ie: without a major nuclear war, etc). We can deepen our understanding of extreme circumstances later–after we first better understand more normal development. It is the Avakian method to paralyze thought by raising the spectre of supposedly looming catastrophe. We can do better than that.

Put simply: I believe we must focus first on what we need to do if a nuclear war does not wipe out human civilization.

Nando, it appears to me that this thread has reached the limits of its usefulness. If you are invested in not understanding something (I do not mean to be pejorative but neither will I hide my assessment) there is little point in attempting to develop the discussion with you at this time. Maybe this can be pursued in the future. Things happen at their own pace.

———- (2) ———-

Finally, I would like to thank Jan Makandal for his comments. Since so much, at this time, is “up in the air” it is useful to have someone lay out basic principles (I have added boldface because I am thrilled to see these principles highlighted):

Capitalism defeated and conquers feudalism because it created a higher norm of productivity of labor. Capitalism renders society richer. Scientific socialism will defeat capitalism eventually because it [scientific socialism] will render society more richer than the organized system of capitalism.

and also this:

I will argue there can’t be any alternatives to capitalism outside class struggle. There neither will be any communist alternatives outside of the leadership role of the working class.

These things are so basic to scientific views of the revolutionary process that I sometimes (incorrectly) assume that they are widely known in a forum such as this. But my experience is going in the other direction: these basic principles must be fought for and must be repeated.

I have argued along similar lines as Jan (in the Kasama “threads” forum) and, for my efforts, have been told that my horizon is (supposedly) limited by “narrow workerism”.

Jan, if you have time I very much appreciate your considered comments on this thread (still unfinished as I have yet to reply to Chegitz):

Criticism of Kasama ‘s social-democratic mission statement

The Kasama group appears to have eliminated
the class struggle and class politics from
its mission statement in a bid to be “respectable”
and acceptable to a strata of social-democratic activists

(http, etc) z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=1011

Ben Seattle
(http, etc) struggle.net/ben/