>>>> "Dace" <edace at flinthills.com> 02/23/00 02:00PM >>>
>
>
>That capitalism is opposed to human nature is revealed by the fact that
>labor no longer means "to produce with imagination." Capitalism attempts
to
>remove imagination from labor as much as possible. >****************
>
>CB: What about the producer's use and control of the product ? Isn't loss
of use and control of the fruits of one's labor unnatural ?
>
At the core of human nature is the desire to share. It's universal in paleo
societies. But you can't give something away when it's already been taken
from you. Appropriation is clearly opposed to our nature.
>**************
>
>
>
>I can't agree with either Ken Hanley-- that the transformation of nature
>through labor is at the essence of human nature-- or with Rob and Charles
>that the will to freedom is at the essence of humanity.
>
>*************
>
>CB: I don't recall saying that the essence of humanity is the will to
freedom. I thought I said Engels and Marx seem to think that it is human
nature to want to use and control the fruits of one's labor.
>
>Whom do you think Engels and Marx agree with ?
>
Since they would agree with the notion that we define ourselves through our
nature-transforming labor, they would also agree with the notion that to
lose ownership over the products of our labor is to lose ourselves.
>**************
>
>
>
>What's curious about our early history is that nothing whatsoever
>changed in our way of life for a very long time. The prefrontal lobe was
>fully developed 200,000 years ago, meaning that we were consciously engaged
>in abstract thought at that time. Yet it took another 100,000 years before
>there was even the slightest sign of alteration in our interaction with
>nature, and it was another 40,000 years after that before we finally got
>around to updating our toolkit, which had been established 1.5 million
years
>ago by our African predecessor, Homo ergaster. Talk about lazy!
>
>*****************
>
>CB: The point I would agree with here is that preclass society was marked
by slow and no change in comparison with class society. And that is because
there is no exploitation and class struggle in the stone age. Class struggle
is the motive for the rapid and extensive change in class society. History
if a history of class struggles.
>
When change finally began to occur, it was probably set off by our struggle
with nature. Eventually it developed its own momentum. The more mastery we
attained, the more our advances accelerated. By about 25 to 30 thousand
years ago, we'd undergone profound changes, all without class struggle.
(I'm assuming class struggle doesn't begin till after 12,000 years ago, with
the emergence of warfare. The original ruling class was probably a tribe
that conquered surrounding tribes. The first rulers were the warrior
peoples.) So the struggle against predators and adverse natural conditions
produced quite a bit of history prior to the onset of the class struggle.
What's interesting is the transition from the first to the second. It seems
that once we'd reached the point at which "the jungle" was no longer
threatening, we compulsively recreated it among each other, with the warrior
in the role of the predator-beast.
>CB: Also, the implication of what you say is that stone age labor was not
very imaginative, in the sense of inventing new tools and techniques. The
main thing would be it was planned ahead of time and that it was not
instinct but passed on from generation to generation through culture,
language , symbols, imagination in that sense.
>
True, we have no instinct for tool-making. But then neither do birds for
flying. They have to be taught by their parents, as do we. It's not a
matter of culture or symbols. It's a matter of being around and paying
attention and gradually getting the idea. Our toolkit was passed on in this
manner for 1.5 million years. Once language got involved, then a more
complex toolkit could be passed on from generation to generation.
Dace