Steve Gabosch Charles, in that quote from German Ideology below, M&E refer to producing their *means* of subsistence, as in means of production, not the subsistence itself, as in gathered berries or hunted game, which as you point out humans did not domesticate until quite recently.
^^^^ CB: Could be as you interpret it. But "means of subsistence" could correspond to their later "means of consumption" as opposed to their later "means of production". ^^^^^ Wouldn't social labor - including tools, like baskets and spears, as well as language to plan expeditions, and culture to pass on knowledge to future generations - count as "means of subsistence?" We of course know far more today about what pre-historic human life was like than anyone in the 19th Century did - or at least we have much more archeological data - but I think M&E were on the right track on this one. I don't think they would disagree with your point about culture and language, which I think enhances their essential point about human social labor - the ability to produce - being the core difference between humans and animals. - Steve ^^^^^ CB: Yes, means of production could include language and planning as part of means of subsistence, but later on in this part of the German Ideology they make a big point about "only then does consciousness arise " or some such. Also, note they contrast "producing means of subsistence" with consciousness and religion. Well, in fact socalled ancestor worship would be a prime example of a method cultural transmission. But furthermore, even if we take "producing means of subsistence" to mean "producing means of production" or the famous "tool-producing", I have concluded after many years of contemplating this that "tool-producing" is not the key distinction of humans. It is the passing on of how to make tools from one generation to the next that is uniquely human. Chimps in the wild today make tools. They just don't have tool making ,intergenerational traditions. I'm willing to discuss this more. This issue is a sort of speciality for me. It is a critique of Engels "The role of labor in the whatever of man " essay. The key is SOCIAL labor, not social LABOR. And even more "social" must most importantly include intergenerational sociality. I can elabortate if you like. To give another one of my favorite examples,each generation's not having to reinvent the wheel is the key, not inventing it in the first place. It is the cultural mechanism that allows ACCUMULATION of inventions that is critical, not the initial act of inventing some tool or form of labor. An individual primate might invent some tool, but they have no way to pass it on to future generations. Imitation is insufficient for that; culture is needed. Things like rituals and myths are needed. I know this is sort of heresy in that it seems to be idealism. I think not. Critique of idealism is only pertinent once we get to class divided society, antagonism between mental and physical labor, idealist philosophers and the like. I _am_ saying, frankly, that Marx and Engels essentially make a mistake in projecting this pertinent issue for the era of antagonism between mental and physical labor back onto the origin of human society. The great original human _material_ advantage compared with other primates is the ability to _pass on_ "how to make a wheel". In other words, _not_ having to _re_invent the wheel because the original invention can be passed on to you via culture is the critically unique human ability. Allowing future generations to share the experiences of ancestors is a great _material_ advantage for the species, and the main , original distinguishing characterisitic of our species. To get back to your original point again, that there arises something such as "consciousness" , i.e. symbolic thinking ,allows the intergenerational communication of how to "produce your own subsistence." You can't just pass on the physical tool to your kids without _explaining_ how to make it and how to use it. Primate imitation is insufficient to pass on a large "toolkit" to your kids. Whaddaya think ? Charles >>Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by religion or >>anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish themselves >>from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, >>a step which is conditioned by their physical organisation. By producing >>their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual >>material life. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
