[Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Steve Gabosch bebop101 at comcast.net Thu Jun 2 18:45:46 MDT 2005
Previous message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Next message: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics! Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles, your logic below unsuccessfully explains the relationship between human biology and human society. You merely repeat something no one disputes. All animals reproduce, just as they all breathe, and would die without doing so. But only humans produce - and probably would not even survive as animals anymore if they did not do so. The key question in my opinion is to address just what humans do that is new and different from other species. What makes humans "human"? Clearly, the answer begins with production and related activities. What is it about production and related activities, such as intergenerational transmission of culture, language, etc., that allows human collectives to continually transform both nature and themselves (including their methods of reproduction, family systems etc.)? A dialectical analysis of this continual process requires, in my opinion, a grasp of the fundamental "logic" of how human social labor and production creates an entirely new domain of life-existence unknown in non-human species. To see how little your paragraphs below contribute to this kind of understanding - I am not saying this about you, just the passages you offer below - substitute the term "respiration" for "reproduction" below - or for that matter, substitute any essential biological function. Humans would die from the lack of any of them (digestion, excretion, etc. etc.). You make this point yourself explicitly. But this point that humans absolutely require a successful biological existence to become the historical creatures we have become is certainly true, but unenlightening - even, if you will allow me to put this sharply, trivial, if that is as far as one goes. Who would dispute you? The challenge is to explain how we grew from being once upon a time *just* mammals to the sociological humans we are today - and the communists we aspire to be in the future. This line of inquiry is what Marx and Engels invented, and which I encourage all to continue developing. Again to put it bluntly, simply placing an equal sign between biology and sociology does not seem to contribute anything of much value that I can see. On the other hand, showing how the biological becomes sociological is very helpful. How did humanoid primates became historical beings? For example, a study into the role cultural transmission plays in production and socio-historical development, the investigation you suggested yesterday - based, I would urge, on the classical Marxist insights into the role of production in history as the motor force of the creation of humanity - could well qualify as such a helpful piece. That is my motivation for encouraging you to pursue your insights and studies on this - I believe this kind of study enhances Marxism and human science. On the rich question of reproduction that you raise below, much study is needed there, too - on how modes of reproduction have originated and developed in history, and how forms of reproduction, family systems, etc. have been major motor forces in the development (forward, backward, sideways and other ways) of human society and human psychology. Perhaps this is another formal piece of writing you could work on. Good luck! - Steve At 11:32 AM 6/2/2005 -0400, Charles Brown wrote: >Actually , this essay ( rough copy here) is not on the issue that Steve >suggested I develop. But it does deal with the anthropological passages at >the beginning of _The German Ideology_ that are close to the one Steve first >adduced for discussion. > >As I read this essay, I am claiming that M and E are not materialist enough >in the GI. I don't have the part here, but in _The Origin of the Family, >Private Property and the State_ Engels has much more advanced anthro >knowledge than in _The G I_ , and in the Preface , he says production AND >the family are cofundamental in determining _history_. > > I sent this to Thaxis several years ago > >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-April/008694.html > >Charles > > >For Women's Liberation : Whoever heard of a one genearation species ? > > > Every Marxist knows the A,B,C's of historical >materialism or the materialist conception of history. >The history of all hitherto existing society, since the >breaking up of the ancient communes, is a >history of class struggles between oppressor and >oppressed. > In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels >asserted an elementary anthropological or >"human nature" rationale for this conception. >In a section titled (in one translation) >"History: Fundamental Conditions" , they say: > > ...life involves before everything else > eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing >and many other things. The first historical > act is thus the production of material life >itself. And indeed this is an historical act, >a fundamental condition of all history, which >today, as thousands of years ago, must daily >and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain >human life. > > > Production and economic classes are the >starting point of Marxist analysis of >human society because human life, like >all plant and animal life must fulfill biological >needs to exist as life at all. It is an appeal >to biologic ( anti-vulgar marxists , fancy >marxists to the contrary notwithstanding). >Whatever humans do that is "higher" than >plants and animals, we cannot do if we do >not first fulfill our plant/animal like needs. >Therefore, the "higher" (cultural, semiotic,ideological >etc.) human activities are limited by the productive >activities. This means that historical >materialism starts with human NATURE, our >natural species qualities. > Yet, it is fundamental in biology that the >basic life sustaining processes of a species >are twofold. There is obtaining the material means >of life and subsistence or success of survivial of >the living generation, for existence ("production"). >But just as fundamentally there is reproduction or >success in creating a next generation of the >species that is fertile, and survives until it too >reproduces viable offspring. Whoever heard >of a one generation species ? We can imagine a >group of living beings with the ultimate success >in eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing >and many other things. But if they do not >also reproduce, they are either not a species >or they are an extinct species (unless the individuals >are immortal) > > Thus, having premised their theory in part >on human biology, our "species-being", >Marx and Engels are logically obligated to >develop historical materialism based, not >only on the logic of subsistence production, >but also on the logic of next generation >reproduction. > In The German Ideology, they did >recognize reproduction as a "fundamental >condition of history" along with production. >However, they give reproduction or, at >least, "the family" a subordinate "fundamental" >status to production when they say: > >"The third circumstance which, from the >very outset, enters into historical development, >is that men, who daily remake their own life >begin to make other men, to propagate their >kind: the relation between man and woman, >parents and children, the FAMILY. The family, >which to begin with is the only social >relationship, becomes later, when increased >needs create a new social relations and the >increased population new needs, a subordinate one..." > > My thesis here is that the mode of REPRODUCTION >(in the broad sense of all caring labor, including >but not limited to social institutions called "the" >family) of human beings remains throughout human >history equally fundamental with the mode of production >in shaping society,even with the "new social relations" >that come with "increased population". For there to be >history in the sense of many generations of men AND >women, all of the way up to Marx and Engels and us >today, men had to do more than "begin to make other >men". Women and men had to COMPLETE making >next generations by sexually uniting and rearing them >for thousands of years. Otherwise, history would have >ended long ago. We would be an extinct species. >An essential characteristic of history is its existence in >the "medium" of multiple generations. Thus, with >respect to historical materialism, reproduction is as >necessary as production. > Not only that, In the above quoted passage, >Marx and Engels give reproduction a "subordinate", >"fundamental" condition of history status by the >following sleight of hand: in part population increase >or THE SUCCESS OF REPRODUCTION somehow >makes reproduction less important in "entering into >historical development" as a "fundamental condition". >This is quite a misogynist dialectic, given that "men" >are in the first premise and the third premise, but >women are only mentioned explicitly in the latter. It >is also and idealist error, because the theory now >tends to abstract from the real social life of >individuals in reproduction. > > This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ 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
