Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 23:08:10 +0200 (MET DST)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: "morals"


>In reply to malecki
>
>Lisa previously wrote:
>>... any critters that
>>habitually destroyed their own offspring wouldn't last long.  Making
>>more offspring survive, as much as possible, that is the tendency of
>>animal behavior, [probably as a result of natural selection.] 
>
>Malecki: Is this why revolutionaries oppose forced birth control
>(actually caste control) in India and would propose the right to free
>abortion on demand and sex education. 
>
>Lisa:  I don't know, I wouldn't say that.  I do think that what a lot
>of us want is to have control over our own reproduction, so we can
>each choose the number of children we have.  [Of course this would
>enable each one to pursue one's fitness interests, whether they
>thought of it that way or not.]  Some people also want to have
>control over others, which I think is generally done to serve the
>controllers' interests.

Both true and untrue. Naturally in the industrial countries the first, if 
not a reality, at least a general demand for that right. In India however it 
is connected to the reality that the poorer castes usually have one 
insurance policy of surviving when older and that is having lots of kids. It 
is also the case in rural peasant or farmers communities because it involves 
family labor (lots of kids) to till the land. In China we have the bizarr 
situation of a Stalinist bureaucracy which bases its birth control on 
closing their eyes to the fact that female babies get iced or dumped on a 
roadside. Sort of accepting the peasant myth that boys are more valuble then 
girls..
So it is difficult to draw generalities over the whole subject. It has to be 
connected to a program which can create the situation where women do in fact 
have the right to chose over their own bodies..
>
>Lisa: >All social mammals spend most of their lives with a small
>number of>others that they know very well. 
>
>malecki: Well, partially true. But fragmentation of family relations
>under imperialism certainly does not make this a universal law..
>
>Lisa:  I do not speak or think in terms of "universal law".  I was
>making a generalization, which I think is still generally true for
>humans as well.  Actually, my formulation was a bit of tautology,
>since "social" animals are by definition hanging out with each other
>and often knowing each other as individuals, which was part of the
>point I was trying to make, it's not only humans that do this.

They also try to kill each other in the fight for survival. Although in the 
animal world not usually in the same species as with the human race. But 
naturally this has a lot to do with the human race because of the larger 
brain and evolment, and the fact that humans went over to commidity exchange 
>from being a hunter. But also being the king or Queen on the evovlement 
pyramid, (at least that is what we claim) thus winning the battle of 
survival over the other species and politics leads to a situation where the 
species start killing off each other..
 
>
>Of course it's true that people less often live near many relatives
>in societies where the means of obtaining food and shelter depends
>mostly on a large scale labor market.  But the original statement I
>was replying to was that only humans "make relationships".  Although
>extended families live together less often, people and many other
>species do get to know and spend time with non-relatives also.
>
>Lisa: >Non-humans are well known for displays and contests that
>rarely >involve injury.  Even if one is bound to win, to attempt to
>kill>another may increase risk of injury to the winner, and once the
>loser>knows hse is going to lose, it might as well back off, and
>generally>does.
>
>malecki: Is this based on individual species like lemmings? Or do
>animals in flock faced with a forest fire or war act out of survival
>of the fitess?
>
>Lisa:  I don't know why you distinguish between "individual species"
>and "flocks" or between forest fires and any other kind of situation.
> What living things generally appear to be doing is trying to
>increase the numbers of copies of their own genes in future
>generations, i.e. to serve their own darwinian fitness.

I am not so sure about that. Is it the sex drive or the drive to increase 
the numbers that is dominant? It is also connected in what type of society 
one finds oneself in relation to this allso. Thus in India it is the 
middleclass who want birth control for themselves (overriding the Darwin 
reproduce stuff) for Whatever. On the other hand the lower castes are forced 
on to sterilisation campaigns etc. because they produce children as 
security. So it gets pretty complicated. Or at least i think it does..
>
>Lisa:>Humans invent "morality", just like the rest of ideology, in
>the>context of material, infrastructural factors, and in the attempt
>to>influence _other's_ behavior, for their _own_ benefit.
>
>malecki: Don,t think i agree with the above. Morality amongst humans
>is determined by the dominant ideology and institution of the
>times..Or maybe you mean the same thing?
>
>Lisa:  Probably meaning something similar.  But when I refer to
>"humans" generally I am not limiting that to capitalist or class
>societies.  In this broader view, it is not always or only "the
>ruling class that makes the rules", because there may _be_ no ruling
>class.  Whoever the rule-makers are in any sort of society, I expect
>that they are trying to serve their own interests.  
>
>Also, I would reply with a question - isn't morality part of
>ideology?  Either way, what determines the "dominant ideology and
>institution" ?  Ideology doesn't spring from nowhere or historical
>accident or "great men" only, right?  What I called material and
>infrastructural you might recognize by the phrase "economic base".  
>

I will answer the last with a poem. And some other stuff futher on.

BOB IN A NUTSHELL

My ego is
or is it Igor
the apeman
trying to survive

Its a polish general
oh, bullshit man
your tribe
has been conquered
by every one

The blood in my veins
Mongol, Russian
German, Swede
Through the ages
pissed on, shit on

No man
I,m Americannn...
Your skin ain,t red
Oh shit, man

I should have stayed
Scratching my ass
picking my nose
in a tree
There ain,t no way back,Igor
Its your ego

Morals naturally are determined by the material infrastructure. But also the 
human race has some basic intincts and drives which are individual for 
everyone of them. 
These drives also determine  morals both for the better or for the worse.  
In fact it doesn,t depends on who is getting the shitty end of the stick all 
the time either.

But not being a god some of us side with the underdogs and others with the 
overdog. Both from there own moral perspective based on both drives and 
infrastructure claim to be morally correct. But if this species is going to 
evolve to a higher stage of development i prefer trying the communist 
alternative..

malecki 







			

																														




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