> Why in your view is it relevant to evolutionary theory, the
> sociobiological hypothesis, or a search for evolutionary
> psychology, what Marx or Hegel said?
>
What Hegel and Marx said is relevant to what Marx meant by a "true realm of freedom". What Marx meant by a "true realm of freedom" is relevant to the consistency of the idea with evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. They're not consistent with the idea so the "form of cooperative democracy (anarchism, socialism" compatible with evolutionary psychology and sociobiology isn't Marx's.
The idea that our relations, including our sexual relations, are creatures of the "reproductive strategy" of agents other than ourselves and, therefore, cannot be our creatures is an example of what Marx means by "fetishism". It's also self-contradictory since the ontology involved has no logical space for the idea of agents pursuing strategies.
> Why do you think that evolutionary psychology or sociobiology is
> necessarily biological determinism?
I'm pointing to the ontology involved. It's an ontology that excludes "self-determination" and "final causation" as "causes" of what occurs. As I said, you can find a critical elaboration of this feature of modern science in Whitehead, e.g. in Modes of Thought.
If our actions are completely determined by outside forces then, as a matter of logic, our beliefs can't influence our acts. So the idea that our actions are determined in this way is inconsistent with the idea that we would not act at all if we believed it.
Ted
Ted