Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 09:41:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Groups as basic unit of production



JTWest117-AT-aol.com writes:
> 
> In a message dated 96-04-10 14:09:43 EDT, you write:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Just curious, why would we need to construct a link between captialism and
> genetic explanations and a mode of production for early hominids?  The force
> of production in early homind environs would have been the need for food,
> production would have been the activity of procuring food, whether early
> hominids gathered food cooperatively or on individual basis.  The need for
> food and the practice of gathering it would constitute a structuring practice
> regardless of the degree of complexity to those practices.  To explain homind
> development in the terms of force of production would require us to examine
> the early hominid mode of production, whether this would be fruitful line of
> inquiry or not I do not know.
> 
> 

I wrote this paragraph you are commenting on thinking it is relatively
clear what I was talking about. From your and Lisa's comments, it's
obvious it wasn't.

Human society clearly has laws of development different to those acting
in the rest of nature, even while we are part of nature.

The earliest hominid ancestors, by definition not human, were not subject
to the laws of human society but of nature.

The explanation of the rise of human society must start with hominids in
their African environment, and use the laws of nature to explain why 
human society developed. Chronologically , this refers to a period
starting roughly 3,000,000 years ago and ENDING with the demise of
the neanderthals ( 20 ? 15 ? 10,000 years ago ).

By "genetics" , I really meant "evolution and all that".
By "forces of production" I meant human society.

The way hominds / humans interacted with nature between 3,000,000 years ago 
and 10,000 years ago would have elements of both sorts of explanation, initially
with the former dominating, ending with the later evenatually dominating.

Does this explain what I meant better ? Does your question still apply ?
If it does, could you explain what your question means more ? [ I found
it hard to understand what you were saying ].

Thanks,
Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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


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