re-evolution

[Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Luftmensch posted:
Subject: re-evolution
[snip]
Having recently read the works of Stephen Jay Gould, I am much
interested in discussion of the very obvious contrast between marxism
and the theory of natural selection. Gould presents a compelling
depiction of indeterminacy in  Wonderful Life. His argument for
contingency would seem to have little in common with the basic
humanism of marxism.

Lisa replies: I am indeed interested in developing/continuing a Marx
+ Darwin conversation/ thread onlist.  My initial education was a BS
in evolutionary biology, and I'm now an Anthropology grad stu,
obviously interested in marxism.  I've written a bit of commentary on
Engels Origin of FPPS onlist this winter.

I just discovered an interesting little book that I have not yet
read, it's called _Marx and Engels on Malthus_ by Ronald Meek, 1953,
Lawrence and Wishart: London.  It has a section on Darwin.  It
includes selections from M+E as well as an essay by R.Meek.  Dorothea
and Ronald Meek did their own translations from German for this book.

I'm also interested in Gould and Harris, and we are not alone in
this, as a look at recent list-archives would evidence.  I haven't
read Harris on 'two planets', but I am quite familiar with the
indigenous peoples of Cent/SouthAm and the pre-conquest States.

For me, your post raises several questions, any one of which could
become an interesting conversation.

What do you mean by 'teleological humanism', and how is it distinct
from regular or Gouldian humanism?

You seem to connect/ combine Harris' 'determinism' with
'materialism', tell me more?

What exactly do you mean by 'determinism' in relation to the 'two
planets' story, and is it the only way to understand parallels in
social evolution?  [BTW, it is not only the E+W hemispheres that have
developed quite separately from each other.]

You seem to see evolution and determinism as opposed to each other,
but the social parallels noted by Harris remind me of the many cases
of convergent evolution in form and structure of lifeforms, meaning
that earlier different forms sometimes come to resemble each other.

I wonder if there _are_ interesting parallels between biological and
social evolution.

Luftmensch wrote:
Not that Gould is not a humanist - he very obviously is. But not in
the teleological sense in which Marx was, so that he could say we are
still in our prehistory.  [snip]
Citing Darwin to the effect that the universe runs by law, with the
details left to the working out of what we call chance, Gould comes
down heavily on the side of chance.

Marvin Harris, on the other hand, has provided a fascinating argument
for determinism [snip]. After having been separated (at the Bering
Straits) for tens of thousands of years, the conquerors from one
planet have no trouble in recognizing familiar patterns, whether of
cities or hierarchies, on the other. [snip]
If not for materialism, how could we explain the riddle of common
evolution?
But are history and necessity one and the same?




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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