Date: Fri, 12 Apr 96 09:16:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Group or individual -Reply



Lisa writes:
> 
> Aha!  We may have arrived at the crux of the matter.  
> I think it seems strange to question things that are "second nature",
> because those things are held deeply, unconsciously even, as
> assumptions, as received wisdom that is so "obviously" true that it
> is unquestioned.  
> 
> Adam, you are _defining_ human society as "collective production and
> reproduction" and you seem happy to leave it at that, while I want to
> take that apart and look inside, to see exactly how and why people do
> various things, why they even form into a group at all.  
>

I think you are being quite unfair when you say because a Marxist approach
is second nature it is unquestioned. The point I was making that it was
strange to have to explain things like this to someone who is working
inside the Marxist tradition. It's like having a long discussion with
a Marxist on the rate of profit, and then being asked "but explain to me
why profit matters to capitalists, then".

>
> People never lose their material biological separateness as actual
> reproducers.  When you father a child, you do not [only] reproduce
> "society" you are propagating copies of _your own_ genes, and
> possibly your own ideas.
> 

I wish I could propogate my own ideas ! Unfortunately, my three year old
son likes guns and wants a power range sword for his 4th birthday !

Cars never stop burning petrol in an internal combustion engine.
But that doesn't explain why lorry drivers get pissed off when I nip
in front of them on my way to work.

> To invoke "the group" as explanatory or determinative, or as if it
> _has_ a point of view of its own, seems quite mysterious to me.

This even more unfair. I tried to explain what I meant by the units
of production in various stages of society - basically the unit
within which the division of Labour is organised. In forager society,
this seems to me ( and to you, I think ) to be a "group" or a "band"
or whatever you want to call it.

I think what is mysterious to you is why I am so insistently dogmatic
about seeing production as central. I can only reply that it is because
I am a Marxist. If you see something other than production as central,
then really the whole of Marxism falls. Even if you may continue to
agree with some of the conclusions of Marxism, you must be getting there
my some other route.

In particular, the discussion over the rise of class society has the
most immediate bearing on why womem are oppressed and how women's
oppression can be ended.

I would argue that it arose with class society and can only be abolished
by getting rid of class society, that working class men have an interest
in getting rid of sexism, and that ruling class women, while they are
oppressed, benifit from womens oppression, in short that there is no
such thing as Marxist Feminism. [ Now there's a whole discussion . . . ]

>
> To
> call humans "social animals" is also not explanatory to me, I need it
> taken apart and rigorously defendable, maybe even with evidence.
> 

Yes, fair enough. I agree. It is not in itself explanatory.

Why it is that humans became social animals does need explaining,
and it needs explaining in terms of evolutionary theory and verification
against whatever evidence we can gather.

Engels explained it. 

His theory is consistent with the evidence, and with the subsequent
development of human society.

I think your criticism of Engels, basically that he is "Lamarkian" ,
is just a different way of saying you don't agree with his basic
aim - to explain the rise of human society as a thing in itself.

>
> I'm no sociologist.  I'm not sure I know just what is the rationale
> for understanding everything in terms of groups, and I'm curious to
> find out.  I know I don't accept an _evolutionary_ explanation on the
> basis of groups, it is impossibly contradictory.
> 

What's your reason for insisting on an _evolutionary_ explanation ? We are
after all, just a load of molecules. Why don't you use organic chemistry ?
In fact, the molecules are just a load of atoms, subject to atomic forces -
why don't you analyse the transition to class society in terms of physics ?
Why stop at the atom ? What about sub atomic physics ? . . . ? . . . ?

Seriously, the "evolution" of life on earth is a discussion about how the
laws governing atoms and molecules ie chemistry, gave rise to conditions
in which cells consisting of atoms arose which can only be understood by
understanding the laws of evolution.

Your argument is equivalent to a chemist arguing that a chemical explanation
of the rise of cellular life is "impossibly contradictory". On the one hand,
the chemist can argue whatever they like, but the fact is, chemistry did
give rise to evolution. On the other hand, they are in a sense correct - 
evolution does seem to contradict chemistry ( eg the law of entropy seems to
be directly contradicted ). The reality has contradictions. So what's new ?

Adam.

PS Sociologically, perhaps you are insisting on a Darwinian approach as
a reaction to the religious creationists in the US ?


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


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


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