Lil Joe: Rather Idealistic, Charles. ^^^^^
CB: I think not. Idealism/materialism doesn't really arise as an issue until the occurrence of class divided societies and the antagonism between mental and physical labor. See rest of response to Steve. The question of what defines humans from their primate ancestors is not a question of idealism vs materialism. ^^^^^ Lil Joe: Here, Charles, I think we have a major disagreement as far as Marxian materialism is concerned. Marx never wrote of 'materialism' and 'idealism' as a discussion outside the context of the materialist conception of history. "First Premises of Materialist Method: The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way." It was in this sense that M-E in German Ideology critiqued Idealism, which is a conception of humanity in contrast to their materialist philosophy of humanity, where they wrote: "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." What the bourgeois ideologists masquerading as cultural anthropologists and sociologists call "culture", Charles, is what Hegel called 'the Idea' objectified in politics, religion and philosophy manifested in civil society's systems of production and appropriation (exchange). The Idea -- whether you call it Culture, Self-Consciousness, Substance qua God, Man qua Subject, or Absolute as not just Substance but Subject as well -- it is Consciousness that is determinate, and that is what makes it Idealism. This is what Marx and Engels critiqued of both the Old Hegelians and the Young Hegelians: "The Old Hegelians had comprehended everything as soon as it was reduced to an Hegelian logical category. The Young Hegelians criticised everything by attributing to it religious conceptions or by pronouncing it a theological matter. The Young Hegelians are in agreement with the Old Hegelians in their belief in the rule of religion, of concepts, of a universal principle in the existing world. Only, the one party attacks this dominion as usurpation. while the other extols it as legitimate. / Since the Young Hegelians consider conceptions, thoughts, ideas, in fact all the products of consciousness, to which they attribute an independent existence, as the real chains of men (just as the Old Hegelians declared them the true bonds of human society) it is evident that the Young Hegelians have to fight only against these illusions of consciousness. Since, according to their fantasy, the relationships of men, all their doings, their chains and their limitations are products of their consciousness, the Young Hegelians logically put to men the moral postulate of exchanging their present consciousness for human, critical or egoistic consciousness, and thus of removing their limitations. This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret reality in another way, i.e. to recognise it by means of another interpretation. The Young-Hegelian ideologists, in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering" statements, are the staunchest conservatives. " It was in opposition to the Idealist conception of history, that is of humanity, that Marx and Engels famous pronouncements concerning 'materialism' were stated in opposition to the Idealism both to the Old and the Young Hegelian dialecticians. The Idea that Marx and Engels stated their materialist idea based on empirical science: "In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises. Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence. They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this their real existence, their thinking and the products of their thinking. Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life. In the first method of approach the starting-point is consciousness taken as the living individual; in the second method, which conforms to real life, it is the real living individuals themselves, and consciousness is considered solely as their consciousness." Charles quotes Lil Joe's quote of Marx/Engels: Actually, Steve missed the important quote in the paragraph that followed: The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce. ^^^^ CB: They don't just "find" means of subsistence in existence. It is inherited from the previous generations. It is the ability to inherit it that distinguishes them from primate ancestors. Lil Joe Response: That's what I mean by Idealism, Charles. Ready made 'inheritance' of means of subsistence is not what initially distinguishes men from other primate species. The early hominids leading to H. Erectus were scavengers-gatherers who did in fact 'find' their subsistence already in existence -- fruit, nuts, animal carcasses, and so on. Their means of production -- early stone tools used to crack nuts and bones were also 'found', just as they found fire and used it prior to gaining knowledge of how to use flint to make it. ^^^^^ Marx/Engels: This mode of production must not be considered simply as being the production of the physical existence of the individuals. Rather it is a definite form of activity of these individuals, a definite form of expressing their life, a definite mode of life on their part. As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm#a2 Lil Joe: But, this was stated more scientifically that philosophically by Marx inCapital: ^^^^^^ CB: The following passage does not address the issue of what distinguishes humans from primate ancestors. In fact, also in Capital I , in the same are as this probably as it is in the chapter on the nature of labor, Marx says that what distinguishes human labor from the finest products of the spider or the bee is that humans build their products in IMAGINATION first. So, the mature Marx, with a bit more anthropology, realized that it is consciousness , not production that is the human distinguishing characteristic. I'll find it tomorrow if you want me too. Lil Joe: How did we jump from early hominids to spiders and bees? =========== Steve: 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 Lil Joe: From what Charles and Steve are saying differencing human beings from their 'primate ancestors' and spiders and bees by culture, i.e. community or collective consciousness of behavior roles transmitted from one generation to the next by internalization through learning, is true of every species of social animals, and social insects as well. By these definitions wouldn't certain species of ants therefore also qualify as 'human'? http://www.sharebuilder.com/about_us/new/welcome.htm Nature Ants ambush prey from foxholes around traps Once insect is snared, other ants swarm in for the kill In this sequence of images, ants snare and devour a cricket. By Robert Roy Britt Updated: 10:02 p.m. ET April 20, 2005 A crafty ant species builds a trap dotted with foxholes for surprise attacks on an insect. They stretch their victim out like a medieval criminal on a rack as more ants swarm in for the kill. Such incredible cooperation among ants has never before been described by scientists. The ants, called Allomerus decemarticulatus, live in trees in the Amazon. Their trap is made of natural plant hairs, some regurgitated goo, and a binding fungus that the ants, amazingly, appear to farm. It allows the ants to snag a meal, such as a large flying insect, that they otherwise could not handle. Here's how it works: An insect lands on the trap, which to the unsuspecting eye looks like part of the tree. Ants spring from dozens of holes in the gallery-like structure and grab the bug's legs, stretching them out to immobilize the large prey. Other worker ants swiftly arrive to sting the bug to death. Before long, the insect is carved up and carted away. The ambush is well orchestrated, as University of Toulouse researcher Jerome Orivel and his colleagues describe in the April 21 issue of the journal Nature. "Allomerus workers hide in the galleries with their heads just under the holes, mandibles wide open, seemingly waiting for an insect to land," the scientists write. "To kill the insect, they grasp its free legs, antennae or wings, and move in and out of holes in opposite directions until the prey is progressively stretched against the gallery and swarms of workers can sting it." The ants then slide the prey across the gallery, again moving in and out of holes, but this time in the same direction. "They move it slowly towards a leaf pouch, where they carve it up." The key to building the trap is a fungus that the ants cultivate. The fungus grows on the trap and solidifies the structure. The researchers grew some tree saplings as a test. If the ants were not present, no fungus grew, but if the ants were there, the saplings developed the fungus. Orivel marvelled over the trap-building. "It is something manufactured by the ants from elements coming from the plant and the environment," he said in an email interview. "Contrary to social spiders which are also collectively building a trap (their web) from the silk they produce, the trap of Allomerus is made from external products." "To our knowledge, the collective creation of a trap as a predatory strategy has not been described before in ants," the researchers conclude © 2005 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved. =========== Lil Joe: Of course there are other types of ant civilizations, some of which are based on war, conquests of the defeated, and subjecting them to slavery. SLAVERY A biological, not a cultural trait, that is wide-spread among ants. Most ant battles you see are actually slave raids. Ant slavery is unique because ant slavery is usually between species, unlike human slavery. Slave making ants Warfare and Slavery a.. Capture larvae and pupae of another species. b.. Carry them back to there own nest where: a.. They acquire the nest odor. b.. Develop into adults and act as workers for their new colony. Some slave making ant species are incapable of surviving without slave workers. They are no longer able to collect food or feed their immatures or themselves. Warfare and Slavery Embodies restless aggression, territorial conquest, and genocidal annihilation of neighboring colonies. Ants war with their own and other species and use a variety of tactics. Imported Fire Ant, Solenopsis invicta vs. the Woodland Ant, Pheidole dentata The fire ants have colonies hundred times larger than the woodland ant and whenever they discover a woodland ant colony they completely destroy it. Yet woodland ant colonies are abundant around fire ants. Whenever, a woodland worker discovers a fire ant scout soldiers are so rapidly deployed that the scout rarely makes it back to its colony. The soldiers do not sting or spray poisons like many ants but rely on large mandibles to cut their opponents into pieces. If despite this the woodland nest is discovered the soldiers fall back to form a short perimeter around the nest which keeps the invading fire ants at bay temporarily. The colony evacuates the nest and after the battle and the fire ants have departed, they will return and reclaim their nest. http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/entomology/topics/societies.htm Some five or six years ago I read a study on warrior ants that (If I recall, were accidentally) moved from a territory heavily populated with conflicting ant colonies at war. Although their military strategies and tactics were well well organized their marshal culture was regarded as 'instinctive' (similar to the way Klangons on Star Trek are presented as genetically warriors). However, in their new territories, where there were space and food enough accommodating all colonies not only ceased warring on one another, but would see and ignore each other. There are other ant civilizations based on animal husbandry, and/or harvesting agriculture: "Many ants keep insect livestock in the order Homoptera. Commonly seen in our area are ants tending aphids. The ants herd the aphids and protect them from predators and parasites, in turn, the aphids reward the ants by providing with droplets of sweet and nourishing honeydew. Besides aphids, scale insects, other Homoptera, are farmed and some insects in other orders. "Other ants and some termites are gardeners. They collect plant material, bring it into their nests, compost it, and use it to grow fungus which they feed on. Leaf cutter and parasol ants are examples." (Social Insects) http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/entomology/topics/societies.htm _______________________________________________ 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
