16th May 2015, 03:35
I mean, what's new here though? Have numerous studies not already confirmed this? What is also particularly dangerous is the legitimization of present political questions through biology and "human nature". What's even more dangerous is how it steps into the territory of evolutionary psychology, almost implying that the present demand for sexual egalitarianism somehow has its basis in our genetic composition. A proper Marxist would recognize that, on the contrary, there is no dissonance between society and human nature - and that sexual egalitarianism existed not out of some kind of evolutionary pressure but as an irrevocable consequence of a specific relation to nature. It's rather simple - a society that lives in precarious existence, that is always on the move, and whose survival is contingent upon food supplies from both sexes will obviously be egalitarian sexually.
Furthermore, is this egalitarianism in the political sense, as we know it today? No. Gender roles still existed, and while they weren't perpetuated through violence, and while both genders may have "shared power", the mere reality of social ramifications being ascribed to biological sex is not a model for 21st century feminism perhaps even by the standards of capitalism following neoliberalism which saw a great rise of women in various sectors and professions (of course followed by a violent and rabid reaction).
The point of what constitutes man is rather simple: Man has never been an animal. The species homo sapiens was already out of the animal kingdom when it possessed the capacity to leave its ecological space and surroundings through the dynamic mobility of the upright posture and the freeing of the hands for intricate transformative tasks. When the species homo sapiens was no longer bound by a specific ecological condition of survival, it was no longer an animal with specific and indefinite ramifications ascribed to its behavior that have political significance today. The truth is that it does not matter what hunter-gatherers actually lived like. There's no reason to think they had war, or sexual domination, but at the same time there's no reason to think that this should inspire an iota of hope into present Communist or egalitarian struggles. Even if they were completely brutal, even if there was horrible shit, we can recognize that this brutality has nothing to do with the brutality of present day society. When scum evolutionary psychologists talk about war being "innate", demand that they give us the exact genetic sequences in our DNA which are responsible for war, and if they can't (just like they can't with intelligence) then they can shut the fuck up and hopefully resign from ever speaking publically. That's how you deal with this. If anything the idea of primitive Communism being a model for the future should introduce a radical anxiety of a basic question: If this is all we have going for us, what's to impede the same conditions which led to class society in a Communist world?
|Hunter-gatherer tribes often didn't engage in full-scale agriculture simply because their own subsistence strategies worked better within the ecology that they were living.|
|We don't "create our own ecology". That's also ridiculous. Humans have managed to create a number of cultural/technological mechanisms that mediate our relationship with our ecologies, making us able to live within those environments more efficiently, but ultimately, we do not control our environment, our environment controls us and we simply try to gain what leverage we can through culture.|
|Hunter-gatherers are widely varied, and don't all have the same cultures. This idealization of hunter-gatherers is a remnant of the old idea of the "noble savage," and it's obsolete.|
|Finally, humans are absolutely animals... And we act like it too, despite all of our convoluted attempts at pretending we don't. All empirical evidence shows that humans are primarily motivated by food and sex, just like all the other animals.|
|Marxism is obsolete. It's a narrow worldview incapable of explaining even the slightest variation in societies with similar material cultures. It doesn't even have a basis to compare that variation to, because none of the orthodox Marxists seem believe in psychology...|
|Again, this is wrong. Plenty of non-industrialized hunter-gatherer people have had stratified societies that were unequal to the point that women were treated like slaves.|
Well, oxytocin is a mammalian hormone which has been around about 500 million yrs, according to wiki. Why did it "manifest itself" in humans only a few thousand yr ago?
Group marriage existed long before pair bonding. What hormonal or psychological mechanism explains group marriage?
|There has never been a time when humans were not modifying plants and plant populations for their own gain.|
|Also, the tribes with the least access to farmable resources, the northern Arctic tribes, tend to be those with the most rigid, most patriarchal gender roles. Farming cannot be automatically linked to patriarchal gender roles.|
|As a result, a simple change in material conditions, as Marx predicted, is not likely to change that as fundamentally as Marx thought.|
|Oh, and yes, the domestic cultivation of plants is exactly what I was referring to. Hunter-gatherer tribes not only picked plants, but replanted those that they saw as favorable in order to encourage continued growth of plants with that quality. It was hunter-gatherers that caused corn to evolve from the relatively non-productive grass that it was into the major food source that it is today. It was hunter-gatherers that bred the poison out of the earliest potato species, and it was actually hunter-gatherers that bred stronger poison INTO many species in South America (the poison repelled other animals, and could then be processed out by hunter-gatherers). These are ancient processes that go back as far as humans do.|
|That the pomo arguments were tried and tested and found to be of little practical value.|
|I have no idea what this means.|