Thanks for your response, it was a very good one.
Charles, I think you have the makings of a coherent Marxist essay on these
questions you raise. It seems you already have the ingredients at hand for
such a study. For my part, I see the point you stress about the centrality
of the intergenerational transmission of culture not as counterposed, but
as complementary to the theorizing Marx and Engels did about human
production and the social origins of humanity. I think they would heartily
agree with you that the key is SOCIAL labor - (is there evidence to the
contrary?) - and would welcome your bringing to bear some of the relevant
wealth of new scientific knowledge from the social and life sciences that
has emerged since their time - knowledge that has greatly increased our
understanding of what humans have really done with nature, with one
another, and just what it means to be and act human. Well-written and
researched Marxist articles on these kinds of questions are always
needed. Why not give it a go? Its a very important topic, and I think you
are asking some really good questions.
- Steve
<end>
****************************************************
At 02:04 PM 6/1/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote:
Steve Gabosch
Charles, in that quote from German Ideology below, M&E refer to producing
their *means* of subsistence, as in means of production, not the
subsistence itself, as in gathered berries or hunted game, which as you
point out humans did not domesticate until quite recently.
^^^^
CB: Could be as you interpret it. But "means of subsistence" could
correspond to their later "means of consumption" as opposed to their later
"means of production".
^^^^^
Wouldn't social
labor - including tools, like baskets and spears, as well as language to
plan expeditions, and culture to pass on knowledge to future generations -
count as "means of subsistence?" We of course know far more today about
what pre-historic human life was like than anyone in the 19th Century did -
or at least we have much more archeological data - but I think M&E were on
the right track on this one. I don't think they would disagree with your
point about culture and language, which I think enhances their essential
point about human social labor - the ability to produce - being the core
difference between humans and animals.
- Steve
^^^^^
CB: Yes, means of production could include language and planning as part of
means of subsistence, but later on in this part of the German Ideology they
make a big point about "only then does consciousness arise " or some such.
Also, note they contrast "producing means of subsistence" with consciousness
and religion. Well, in fact socalled ancestor worship would be a prime
example of a method cultural transmission.
But furthermore, even if we take "producing means of subsistence" to mean
"producing means of production" or the famous "tool-producing", I have
concluded after many years of contemplating this that "tool-producing" is
not the key distinction of humans.
It is the passing on of how to make tools from one generation to the next
that is uniquely human. Chimps in the wild today make tools. They just don't
have tool making ,intergenerational traditions.
I'm willing to discuss this more. This issue is a sort of speciality for me.
It is a critique of Engels "The role of labor in the whatever of man "
essay. The key is SOCIAL labor, not social LABOR. And even more "social"
must most importantly include intergenerational sociality. I can elabortate
if you like.
To give another one of my favorite examples,each generation's not having to
reinvent the wheel is the key, not inventing it in the first place. It is
the cultural mechanism that allows ACCUMULATION of inventions that is
critical, not the initial act of inventing some tool or form of labor. An
individual primate might invent some tool, but they have no way to pass it
on to future generations. Imitation is insufficient for that; culture is
needed. Things like rituals and myths are needed.
I know this is sort of heresy in that it seems to be idealism. I think not.
Critique of idealism is only pertinent once we get to class divided society,
antagonism between mental and physical labor, idealist philosophers and the
like.
I _am_ saying, frankly, that Marx and Engels essentially make a mistake in
projecting this pertinent issue for the era of antagonism between mental and
physical labor back onto the origin of human society.
The great original human _material_ advantage compared with other primates
is the ability to _pass on_ "how to make a wheel". In other words, _not_
having to _re_invent the wheel because the original invention can be passed
on to you via culture is the critically unique human ability. Allowing
future generations to share the experiences of ancestors is a great
_material_ advantage for the species, and the main , original distinguishing
characterisitic of our species.
To get back to your original point again, that there arises something such
as "consciousness" , i.e. symbolic thinking ,allows the intergenerational
communication of how to "produce your own subsistence." You can't just pass
on the physical tool to your kids without _explaining_ how to make it and
how to use it. Primate imitation is insufficient to pass on a large
"toolkit" to your kids.
Whaddaya think ?
Charles
>>Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or
>>anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves
>>from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence,
>>a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing
>>their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual
>>material life.
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
