Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:58:49 +0200
From: DasKapital-AT-pseud.pseud
Subject: M-INTRO: the nature of capitalism


well, I'm certainly not as well-versed a human evolutionist as Felix seems
to be but let me just made a lay comment: to my understanding, most
animals, from birds, to deers, to fish live in communities and CO-OPERATE
for resources, survival, and protection (save the aspect of sexual drive,
but maybe Felix proposes some form of freudianism taht i am not familiar
with and is suggesting that humans are dominantly driven, overdetermined as
it were, by their sexual drive, a behavior which then becomes universal for
men as a whole...hmmm, maybe. but seriously, i don't know much about these
evolutionist theories you talk about, so if you could just explain a bit
more what/who you are referring to and what the essence and evidence is
these evolutionists are using for their theories? that would help to find
common ground. otherwise we will throw things at each other (see below)
while we might actually be in concurrance with eachother. so, what exacly
is it you are referring to there?

but the point i was hoping to make is a different one. sure if you stretch
the term competition to encompass everything, from putting up the more
lavish tribe party (potluck) than the other tribe, or inventing the most
creative form of dance, or whatever, fine there is evidence humans have
been competitive. is it natural or socially constructed? appartently Felix,
the evolutionary, has knowledge about the discovery of the "competitveness
gene" (i heard they are as eagerly searching for the basketball gene in
black children these days)and so knows something i don't which is not very
hard. but i think what we are concerned about in this list is not some form
of creative competitiveness of pre-capitalist societies but to compete do
exploit humans. 

but here is another point, the question we have to ask is what conditions
need to be in place for competitiveness to occur. we should probably not
forget that humans have formed SOCIETIES, governed by laws and values and
customs and what have you. that is btw a far cry from the hunter and
gatherer societies of pre-historic times. so within this framework, what do
we need to get the UNIQUE form of ECONOMIC competitiveness we find in
capitalist societies. first i would urge, we need an autonomous economic
subject (the homo oeconomicus). and then this economic subject must believe
that with his or her actions she can influence the future in a way that
generates wealth (through trade, for instance). for that by the way humans
invented the contract, something that forces them to commit themselves to a
distant future. an unbelievable step in human history: to honor the future
commitment and trusting that the other party would do the same. so there
one example of conditions necessary for the social construction of economic
exchange. so we need in essence two things for economic competitve
behavior: an autonomous (in the sense of free) self and the believe that
the future can be shaped by my actions. It seems competition as it is
relevant here does not make sense in absence of at læeast hese conditions
(i'm sure there are more but that i don't have a clue of). now, we know
that the believe in a free autonomous self bgan with well, depends,
Descartes or Kant, whatever, it was an invention of modernity. and that one
is able to influence the future by one's actions is actually about as old.
first, remember, teh religious doctrine of predestination had to be
reconciled with the emerging spirit of the capitalist self. before the
modern age, people were born in their place and remained there because it
was given by god!!! and the idea of the ego, teh unique individual that is
DIFFERENT from anyone else and has UNIQUE capabilities, IS A MODERN
INVENTION. as "fixed" objects of a god-given world order,  why would they
become competitive in an economic sense?? they want to be good carpenters
and farmers, yes, but hat is on the level of skill and techne, NOT on the
level of industrial expoitation. so the form of economic copetitiveness
seems unique to capitalism. but then again, maybe there is the capitalist
gene as well. 

just some random thoughs. too busy to give it more time


dK


I think that DasKapital has confused the issue.  Any evolutionist would 
agreee that competition is natural.  It is competition which drives natural 
seleciton.  We are in constant competition for a limited number of 
resources, and this is a NATURAL process.  Anyone well-versed in human 
evolutionary theory would agree that man by nature is competitive.  Our 
drive too compete is, in fact, natural or genetic, BUT this does not mean 
capitalism is a necessary consequence.  And, it does not mean that we must 
accept inequality.  Violence, according to most anthropologists, is also 
natural and a product of evolution (in fact, violence is considered 
partially a product of competition).  However, this does not mean that we 
should not try to prevent violence, simply because it is "natural".  By the 
same token, there is no reason that we should not try to temper competition 
in an effort to create a more fair society.  To say that competition is a 
product of the social conditions is inaccurate.  Rather, I would accept the 
argument that competition is perpetuated by the social and material 
conditions, and that by changing those social and material conditions we may 
work towards tempering human competition.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
http://profiles.msn.com.



     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---






     --- from list marxism-intro-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---