Dan Little: Large structures and social change

Dan Little examines the relationship between Large structures and social change.

The core they identify has to do with the "ways in which multiple relations of domination, subordination and exploitation intersect with and reproduce each other".

From this perspective we argue that capitalism is best understood as a set of configurations, assemblages, or bundles of social relations and processes oriented around the systematic reproduction of the capital relation. (8-9)

Robert Brenner's treatment of the emergence of English capitalism is particularly instructive (link). (Anievas and Nişancıoğlu offer considerable criticism of Brenner's approach.) In two important articles in the 1970s and 1980s Brenner cast doubt on the classic Marxian derivation of capitalism from feudalism; he argued that it was precisely differences in feudal regimes that accounted for the different trajectories taken by English and French capitalism. Ironically, the social power held by French peasants impeded the emergence of managerial farming, which was itself an important step on the way to industrial revolution. As a consequence the proletarianization of English peasants proceeded much more rapidly than French society.

There is an important historiographical issue here that is illustrated in these works by Dobb, Anievas and Nişancıoğlu, and Brenner: to what extent is it feasible to look for large macro-processes and transitions in history? Should we expect large social and economic factors writing out social change? Or is history more contingent and more multi-pathed than that? My own view is that the latter approach is correct (link). Neither technology (link) nor population (link) nor class conflict (link) suffices to explain large historical change. Rather, large structures and small innovations add up to contingent and variable pathways of historical development. We've gotten past the "agent-structure" debate; but perhaps we still have the "large factor, small factor" debate standing in front of us (link). And the solution may be the same: both large structures and contingent local arrangements are involved in the development of new social systems.

Emphasis Mine

I am somewhat confused by Little's argument. It is quite possibly my ignorance that is standing in the way of enlightenment.

My understanding is that classes are indeed large-scale structures. Class is an abstraction that encapsulates how people view the world in similar ways. The existence of a Capitalist class does not mean that every Capitalist is identical. There is sufficient similarity of world-views among Capitalists for such an abstraction to be useful.

This similarity of world-views forms the Capitalist class consciousness. That is, when Capitalists talk to each other, they can rely on shared assumptions about the world, and on shared interests in the world.

This does not mean that they are all united in action. There are serious differences about what actions to take in order to defend their shared class interests.

These differences arise out of the historical trajectory of a particular subgroup of Capitalists. Capitalists in Sweden are more open to higher taxation than those in the USA or UK. The primary reason is to do with historical experiences and the lessons learnt from those experiences.

I think Little misrepresents Marxism as being formulaic. It is not difficult to understand that there are many Socialist and Communist parties that think in that way.

Marxism is about placing the class struggle at the centre of history. In doing so, one must look for classes and understand why there is a struggle between them. This struggle is informed by history and creates history. And the struggle in centred around the mode of production and where the classes fit into the mode of production.