From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sun Dec 24 2006 - 12:21:46 EST
Jerry,
I'll keep this for the next year. It is of such an importance that I regard
it as the key to the understanding of Marx's teaching (not only that of
Engels' as you seem to imply). I suggest we follow this point to its utmost extend
and depth. Until then I wish you some relaxed and relaxing days. Happy new
year to you as well.
Best
Dogan
In einer eMail vom 24.12.2006 16:04:15 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt
Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:
"Franklin called man “a tool-making animal.” The use and production of
tools in fact does constitute the distinguishing feature of man. Darwin contests
the opinion that only man is capable of the use of tools, and gives many
examples which show that in an embryonic form their use is characteristic for
many mammals. And he naturally is quite right from his point of view, i.e., in
the sense that in that notorious “human nature” there is not a single feature
which is not to be found in some other variety of animal, and that therefore
there is absolutely no foundation for considering man to be some special
being and separating him off into a special “kingdom.” But it must not be
forgotten that quantitative differences pass into qualitative. What exists as an
embryo in one species of animal can become the distinguishing feature of
another species of animal.
Dogan:
Plekhanov concedes the point, in the section above, that:
a) "there is not a single feature [associated with 'human nature', JL]
which is not found in some other variety of animal"; and
b) "there is absolutely no foundation for considering man to be some
special being and separating him off into a separate 'kingdom'".
but ...
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> This particularly applies to the use of tools. An elephant breaks off
branches and uses them to brush away flies. This is interesting and instructive.
But in the history of the evolution of the species “elephant” the use of
branches in the fight against flies probably played no essential part; elephants
did not become elephants because their more or less elephant-like ancestors
brushed off flies with branches. It is quite otherwise with man. <
Note the inference by Plekhanov concerning the evolution of the species
'human'.
The implication here is that humans only became fully human with the
development of their tool-making abilities. From that perspective, human
societies that have developed productive forces to a higher level could be
seen as being "superior" and more advanced from an _evolutionary_
perspective!
This is a dangerous perspective politically.
To begin with, humans at the dawn of human history (i.e. after the creation
of the new species) are just as human as humans in our time. I know of no
credible scientific or anthropological evidence to the contrary.
Even worse is the implication that the humans in "more advanced" human
societies, in terms of the development of the forces of production, are more
"human" than those in social formations in which the forces of production
are less developed!
But, anyway, thanks for the reference. I think it locates well the origins
of
a particular perspective on these issues among Marxists going back to
Engels, continuing on with Plekhanov, and continuing still further with
more recent advocates of 'dialectical materialism'. It raises the issue
of whether there were some Eurocentric biases in "classical Marxist"
thought.
Best wishes for the holidays and 2007!
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 31 2006 - 00:00:04 EST