[Marxism] The transition to capitalism: is it in our genes?
lajany_otum at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Aug 8 06:41:04 MDT 2007
Mark Lause writes:
<<Can't you folks read a flim-flam?>>
The trouble is not that people on the list don't recognise
flim-flam when they see it, but that Sayan insists on baiting
the list with the said flim-flam, time and time again.
I guess if Sayan thinks it's plausible that capitalism arose in
England due to the expression of particular genes in the
English population, then we should give serious
consideration to plausible generalisations of the hypothesis
Capitalism is just one among many social formations. Since
capitalism is plausibly the product of specific genes being
expressed (perhaps in the environment of the English
countryside), then why should other social formations be
any different? Thus, since there is a biological explanation to
be given for capitalism, why not for feudalism, for
stateless societies, for monarchies and military
dictatorships, and for all the different variations within each
Does it occur to Sayan to ask himself why there are no
socio-biological explanations proffered for the existence
of, say, stateless societies, or feudalism, but that bourgeois
ideologues readily dig such "explanations" up to put a
plausible gloss on capitalism as a "natural" phenomenon?
In fact I've heard it said that there are genetic explanations
that account for colonialism -- thus putting on a biological
footing the historical fact that India was under the British
boot for more than two centuries, since the social position
of the coloniser and the colonised are both genetic outcomes,
not socio-historical ones as the obtuse marxists whom Sayan
is desperately trying to educate here would have it.
In the end this is why the marxists should stop complaining
about imperialism and exploitation -- after all these are
plausibly/largely/mostly biologically determined.
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
More information about the Marxism