[Marxism] Re: apes

Carlos A. Rivera cerejota at optonline.net
Mon Dec 27 16:32:59 MST 2004

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mds" <zenporcupinegrind at breathe.com>

> I think you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill;

I am sorry if being inquisitive is construed by yourself as being "making a 
mountain out of a mole-hill". I think its called intellectual curiosity, 
something I presumed we shared.

> 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.

And its inverse can also be fetishized. Which is why this discussion is not 
"mountain out of a mole-hill".

The critique of ape advocates (Goodall, Dawkins) as (pro-capitalists) social 
activists, cannot be confused with their advances as scientists, even if 
they subjectively go hand-in-hand.

I believe, and I might be wrong, that Gould was guilty of this. Much like 
Chomsky and his Einstein-with-quantum-physics-like denial of ape language.

> Let's not simply laud 'basic materialism' without looking at its own 
> ideological convictions.

Oh, I agree, which is why I wanted to clarify yours. You see, there are much 
more people willing to deny that we are apes for ideological reasons, than 
people who become genetic determinists. You sounded like the former.

Which is why I asked for clarification.

When it comes to science, you don't need to be a marxist to be right on.


More information about the Marxism mailing list