Date: Thu, 11 Apr 96 09:18:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Group or individual


> >>> Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>  4/10/96, 03:45am >>>
> 
> Why do I start from the "group" , when it comes to foragers ?
> 
> When it comes to modern capitalism, no one ( or at least, no
> socialist ) would attempt to explain human society in terms of
> genetics. Conversely, no one would attempt to explain the devlopment
> of the earliest hominids in terms of the forces of production, since
> there weren't any. At some point, there is a transition, where one
> kind of development gives rise to, and coexists with the other.
> ***
> 
Lisa:
> I'm not trying to explain anything in terms of "genetics", not in the
> way I understand that word.  I suspect my invocation of evolutionary
> theory is thoroughly confusing, but I'm not what to do about it.
> 
> Is it basically your position that there are no "forces of
> production" without tools?  or what is your definition of that
> phrase?  Sorry, I forget if we got that clear once before.
> 

I didn't mean to get into precise definitions. I was only using 
the terms "genetics" and "forces and relations of production" as
shorthand for the framework that we use to look at nature on
the one hand and human society on the other. By "genetics",
I didn't have a narrow, technical definition ie things to do
with DNA, but the view of an individual passing down their genes
as the dominant factor.

Nevertheless, I think I would argue that forager societies have
both forces and relations of production, and that the first
human ancestors who came down from the trees and stood on their
hind legs didn't. 

I will go into this more if you want me to.

> My objection to your use of the term "group" in the way you do is
> that it generally seems very fuzzy to me. 

Maybe. But I suspect you know exactly what I mean.
The societies we are talking about all organise the production
of their means of subsistence in "groups" , don't they ?

I'd guess the average size of these groups is about 30, definitely
more than 5, less than 100, usually closely related.

A precise definition of "capitalist" or "capital" is also quite fuzzy,
after all. 

> It is also quite
> irrelevant in my view of evolutionary theory.

Of course it is, and rightly so.

And individuals, as individuals, are irrelevant from the point of 
view of sociology.

[ Of course, they may be of interest in
analysing trends, and individuals can play a role in history - but
the question then needs to asked : "what forces in society created
this individual ? What historical circumstances allowed this
individual to make a difference ?" eg Trostky said, correctly, that
"without Lenin there would have been no Russian Revolution". Anyway,
this is a digression ]

> But Adam, you still didn't explain what you mean by "a basic unit of
> production".

Human beings characterise themselves as animals which collectively
produce their means of production and subsistence.

Under different modes of production, they combine in different ways.

Under capitalism, the basic unit of production is the company - in
other words, production is organised and takes place within companies.
This dominates everything else in society. Production does NOT take
place in the modern nuclear familly - the way it is organised is 
dominated and shaped by the way production is organised.
[ This is a gross over simplification really - I've ignored the
world market, and the nation state ! ].

Under Feudalism ( I'm on more shaky ground here ) the familly certainly
is the basic unit of production. Famillies work their land, and give
a proportion of the produce to the lord. Their is also a sense in which
the village is also a basic unit of production, since I'd guess there
are circumstances in which all the villagers work together. [ I'm
not an expert on feudalism, though, so I'm prepared to be corrected 
here ]. The lord's estate is not a basic unit of production - the
labour on the estate is not conected in the way that it is in a capitalist
firm. The division of Labour is basically within a familly, and also within
the village.

In forager society, there is no sense in which there is a division of
Labour between different groups. But there clearly is collective
production of the means of subsistence, and a division of Labour,
within the group.

>
> Also, is there some reason why there cannot be valid /
> useful analysis of some things in terms of "groups" and also in terms
> of individuals? 
>

There are two books, "The role of Labour in the transition from 
ape to man" and "OPPFS". One looks at individuals and explains 
how society developed. The other looks at pre class societies and
explains how class societies developed.

The first book ( pamphlet, really ) looks at a long period in history
- a period of evolutionary scale. At guess, say from 3,000,000 years
ago to today. It stands or falls in relation to Darwin, paleontology,
zoology, ecology etc.

The second looks at a short period in evolutionary terms, but a long
one in historical terms - the development of human society. It 
stands or falls in relation to sociology, anthropology, archeology,
etc.

I think this division is essentially correct.

[ I'll throw in a metaphor here to muddy the waters :

If I write an analysis of the internal combustion engine, this
stands or falls in relation to physics, chemistry, Engineering
etc.

If I write an analysis of traffic jams, I must look at the whole
society, and this stands or falls in relation to politics, 
economics, public policy, etc.

There are some features of traffic jams which can be related to
the properties of the internal combustion engine. But to expect
every feature of a traffic jam to be explained by the properties
of the internal combustion engine is unrealistic, and not helpful.
Given the length of the traffic jam, I can deduce the amount of
polution it produces. But I cannot explain the length of the jam.
This means I cannot explain why traffic jams polute the environment
by looking at the internal combustion engine.

]

>
> Let's work on not talking past each other.  It's tricky when we have
> totally different trainings / world views / or something.
> 

I'll try.

But this conversation seems strange :

>>> Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>  4/10/96, 03:56am >>>
I just think this is obvious - women look after children.
So men tended to specialise in hunting, women in things which fitted
in better with child care. This specialisation means that women who
don't happen to be suckling an infant at that precise moment still
don't go hunting.

Lisa: Why do women look after children, aside from nursing?  Why
would speicalisation be lifelong, no matter what the circumstances?

Adam:
It seems strange because it is asking me to explain things which seem
second nature to a Marxist looking at these things. Human society means
division and specialisation of Labour, in order to produce and reproduce
collectively. As human society develops, the division and specialisation
increases ( there aren't many ways I could earn a living other than to
program computers - and in fact I am in a particular specialised corner
of computer programming ).

One of the earliest divisions and specialisations involved women
specialising in reproduction and those aspects of production which
fitted in with reproduction. Because humans have big brains, and
are basically born prematurely in order to get them through a small
pelvis, they come out more than averagely ( uniquely ? ) defenceless
and unsuited for survival. The big brain was a result of division and
specialisation of Labour, and inherently created more, since care for
the young became a more complex task.

Because it was a complex task, older women would have to spend significant
amounts of time around younger women, passing on the tradition, both
in terms of child care and the knowledge of those aspects of production
which fitted in with reproduction.

Of course, an individual woman could learn how to hunt after raising
children. Perhaps if all the men in a group were wiped out, this is
what happened, I don't know. But from the point of view of the group,
it would be more efficient for her to pass on and use her specialised
knowledge.

Obviously, as they say.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---