[Marxism] Re: apes

mds zenporcupinegrind at breathe.com
Mon Dec 27 15:46:23 MST 2004

>> I'm no natural or anthropological scientist, as I think I made quite 
>> clear;
> Neither am I, but this is basic materialist knowledge.
>> all I'm questioning is the ideological attachments that are often 
>> found with regards to the latest findings in the field of genetics 
>> &c.
> Again, such as which attachments?

This is beginning to get tedious; to quote what I originally said:

	'Indeed, Dawkins provides quite an interesting rational perspective; 
the problems begin to emerge when attention is turned towards the 
biological/genetic determinism that I understand underwrites parts of 
his approach to the question of evolution, and led to conflict with 

The above should make my original point quite clear - that, as I 
understand it - there is a conflict within the field between Dawkins 
and Gould. As for you 'basic materialist knowledge', such 'ABCs' seem 
to be entering the realms of didactic regurgitation of stagnating 
terminology - feel free to do so, but I'll pass.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill; all I meant to 
draw attention to is that biological perspectives can of course be 
fetishised, leaving us with a conception of man that can be as 
paralysing for a movement for progress and social change as that of the 
theologians. Let's not simply laud 'basic materialism' without looking 
at its own ideological convictions.


More information about the Marxism mailing list