From The Pen Of Leon Trotsky- "Socialism And Technology"

Workers Vanguard No. 983
8 July 2011

Socialism and Technology

(Quote of the Week)

In the wake of the Japanese nuclear disaster, much of the left calls for shutting down nuclear power plants, echoing the antitechnology nostrums of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois environmentalists. Addressing the needs of the planned economy of the former Soviet Union, Leon Trotsky stressed that the all-round, qualitative development of industry and technology, which is arrested and distorted under the capitalist profit system, is essential for socialist construction.

We must not destroy technology. The proletariat has taken over the factories equipped by the bourgeoisie in that state in which the revolution found them. The old equipment is still serving us to this day. This fact most graphically and directly shows us that we do not renounce the “heritage.” How could it be otherwise? After all, the revolution was undertaken, first and foremost, in order to get possession of that heritage.

However, the old technology, in the form in which we took it over, is quite unsuitable for socialism. It constitutes a crystallization of the anarchy of capitalist economy. Competition between different enterprises, chasing after profits, unevenness of development between different branches of the economy, backwardness of certain areas, parcelization of agriculture, plundering of human forces: all this finds in technology its expression in iron and brass. But while the machinery of class oppression can be smashed by a revolutionary blow, the productive machinery that existed under capitalist anarchy can be reconstructed only gradually. The completion of the restoration period, on the basis of the old equipment, has only brought us to the threshold of this tremendous task. We must carry it through at all costs.

—Leon Trotsky, “Culture and Socialism” (3 February 1926), reprinted in Problems of Everyday Life (1973)

*Not Ready For Prime Time Class Struggle- Chloe- A Film Review

Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of a movie trailer for Chloe.

DVD Review

Chloe, Liam Neelson, Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfied, 2009

No, I am not reviewing this film, Chloe, based on the story line of this rather mundane (and theme done before) psychological thriller (maybe) about an upper class American family (slightly dysfunctional, of course) who when doctor mom gets “signals” that professor dad is cheating on her in his (and her) old age (40-50 something, okay) who gets catch up in the thrall of what is euphemistically called a high end escort (a.k.a. “hooker”, call girl, etc.). That’s enough detail about the plot.

What really interests me about this film is the sub-theme, the inter-generation lesbian theme that is rather graphic in its depiction. Here escort Chloe, through a series of machinations, beds doctor mom. And old lady doctor mom (and Chloe) likes it. Now the only reason that that theme resonates with me right now is that I have recently read Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour and seen the film (the 1961 version under that same name). That play and film with a very different plot line nevertheless deals rather more obliquely with lesbianism, almost as if it dare not speak its name (and it doesn’t in the first film version of Hellman’s play, These Three). So what makes Chloe of interest is as an example of how far, at least cinematically, we have come from the days when such topics, especially the “hot button” one of inter-generation sex, hetero, lesbian or otherwise, were relegated to underground movie houses or private viewings.

**A Look At The Historic Evolution Of The Bourgeois Nuclear Family- “When Fathers Ruled”-A Book Review

Book Review

When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe, Steven Ozment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Ma., 1983

Those bourgeois ideologues and others who have defended the notion of  the immutable nature of the family have always shrieked to the heavens about the irrationality of the goals of  the international socialist movement, especially its communist wing, in it efforts to replace the bourgeois nuclear family structure prevalent in most of Western society since the 1500s. At least since the Paris Commune in the 19^th century, hell, since the Anabaptist Commune at Munster in the 16^th century they have claimed, and put such claims in graphic and lurid terms, that communists and socialists have programmatically wished to “nationalize women” and place all children in state run orphanages. What they have not understood, and sometimes not they alone, is that the goal is to replace the outdated bourgeois nuclear family structure with more socially sensible norms of interaction between generations. I will gladly discuss that question at some other time but today in reviewing this book, When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe by Steven Ozment, I would to look at the roots, as he does, of the bourgeois nuclear family as it evolved up to the 1500s in Western Europe in order to negate the notion that the bourgeois nuclear family is immutable and unchangeable.         

A critical concept in the arsenal of the defenders of the bourgeois nuclear family is that this structure is somehow the most satisfactory basis to build society on, and by extension, that it is somehow the only form that evolved through history that makes sense. We know, or should know now, with the tremendous increases in academic research that all kinds of family forms from the polygamous to extended kin to nuclear have formed the basic unit of society in the over 10,000 year history of human social organization that we know enough about to judge. That is what makes Ozment’s book so refreshing. He investigates the changes that occurred in the way families faced the world as the bourgeois ethos came to dominate continental Europe at the time of the Protestant Reformation and knocks down that theory flat. .

Although, admittedly, the data available from that period is in some respects scanty nevertheless through chapbooks, self-help books and sermons from the pulpit Ozment has made some reasonable generalizations about the newly emerging burgher class that started to take family life and family culture seriously. Along the way he looks at the changes in the formalities of the marriage contract from it previous essentially common law customary origins to a more formal public pronouncement; the liberation of important segments of women from cloistered life as a result of breakdown of religious institutions (nunneries and the like) in the wake of the Protestant Reformation; and the breakdown of the old religious concept of celibacy as having some inherent virtue over marriage. He also looks at the “new” way that husbands treated their wives; she still subordinate to he but with recognized duties and, more importantly, recognized rights by law and by the emerging ethos; and, given the more formal nature of the marriage vow the more formal nature of divorce (and the greater obstacles to being granted it). Finally, Ozment, although recognizing that fathers “ruled” also traces changes in the way fathers related to their offspring in such matters as seeing to their health, their education and their discipline. There was then, as now, a brisk trade in self-help (and just plain help, please, help) books by authors from Erasmus to Martin Luther down to the local church pastor.  

Special note: There has been a trend in modern academic research, and an important trend a couple of decades ago when this book was written, centered on the notion that since life, was, as Thomas Hobbes put it in the 17^th century, nasty, short and brutish, that the so-called modern notion of child-centeredness was absent and that somehow because of high rates of mortality and other adverse factors that loving and caring for children did not drive parental concerns. Of course nature was a darker force in those days, and there was plenty to tremble about in the harshness of life so that one could speculate that child love would be in short supply but that assumption, as Professor Ozment notes, will not stand closer scrutiny. And so we come full circle, at least for my purposes. Why? Well go back to the start of this review where I noted that the socialist movement has been accused of essentially the same thing as those early bourgeois fathers and families - not loving children. By exposing children to alternative social, healthy, and caring forms under socialism and making the whole of society responsible collectively however we will put paid to that notion.