Really? How so? They are both environmental triggers that had a massive effect in the evolution of all species... but evolution as a theory itself doesn't tell you what caused either.
Absolutely true. But that's not history.
'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...
- Thread starter stuff_it
- Start date
Really? How so? They are both environmental triggers that had a massive effect in the evolution of all species... but evolution as a theory itself doesn't tell you what caused either.
Absolutely true. But that's not history.
Not underplay at all... just find the appropriate level if importance.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You're essentially making my argument for me, do you realise?
TruXta
tired
It's not and was never meant to be a Grand Theory of Everything. We've got physics for that. Or philosophy, depending on your tastes.
TruXta
tired
TBH I'm not sure what argument you're making.
When playing darts?
Lbj said I was being disparaging about Marx and Darwin... I am showing that I was not.
No one said it was.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Of course not. What it does is explain how what happened happened once the environmental causes have been found. Moreover, knowing about evolution leads you to know where to look for those environmental causes. Evolution is just a fact (sorry, I have little time for calling it a theory any more, especially as that is so often misinterpreted - it's no more of a theory than the idea that there was a revolution in France in 1789 - in terms of the weight of evidence for it - yet nobody talks about the theory of the French Revolution). It happens. Knowing that is a massively powerful thing as it tells you where you should be looking for answers.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Of course it doesn't tell you about earthquakes or ice ages, that's not what it's for, it's about explaining the mechanisms by which these environmental contingencies interact with species to produce changes, how changing environments provide niches into which certain adaptations can fit and flourish.
With Capital, it is almost the same, it seeks to explain the fundamental mechanisms of capitalism, that is an abstract model of it, albeit one which like Darwin he furnishes with a huge amount of concrete detail, showing how technologies, social relations and environmental changes arise from and in turn act upon it.
Marx would have loved to see his analysis of Capitalism as no longer relevant, for wage labour, private property, money and the commodity form to have been superseded, unfortunately they aren't and as such his analysis of these fundamental cornerstones of capitalism are massively relevant.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Cycling around doesn't tell you about the lovely countryside does it?
TruXta
tired
If not disparaging, then certainly spuriously dismissive:
You still haven't explained, that I can see, how they are useless. In fact, far as I can tell you seem to be saying that at least one of them is doing a pretty fine job of doing what it was meant to do.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Without evolution, without an analysis of capital, what do you have to explain history?
God did it?
God did it?
revol68
what, fucking what?
well I guess Origins is useless for explaining the rise of capitalism (unless you're some fuckwitted social darwinist) and Capital is a fucking let down in it's inability to address the the proliferation of species on the planet.
So yeah they are pretty fucking shite.
So yeah they are pretty fucking shite.
TruXta
tired
I dunno, some of the basics of evolutionary analysis are pretty amenable to a Marxist interpretation if you ask me. Different time-scales of course, and speaking to different cause-effect relationships within the same larger domain (ie economics).
revol68
what, fucking what?
oh the dialectical relationship between species and environment has some relevance as has been displayed by Lewontin, Rose and Gould, but I'm wary of seeking to crowbar into areas well outside his expertise or interest, and i'm especially weary of having a dialectical approach monopolised as somehow Marxist.
Marx of course felt his analysis and Darwin's were extremely compatible and wrote to Darwin as such, Darwin the rude cunt never read the enclosed copy of Capital.
Marx of course felt his analysis and Darwin's were extremely compatible and wrote to Darwin as such, Darwin the rude cunt never read the enclosed copy of Capital.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Well Darwin was a naturalist through and through. Also, he was a gentleman naturalist - certain aspects of capitalist relations suited him really rather well. 
revol68
what, fucking what?
both.
revol68
what, fucking what?
Well Darwin was a naturalist through and through. Also, he was a gentleman naturalist - certain aspects of capitalist relations suited him really rather well.
wasn't just the capitalist relations he was keen on, eh eh...
Knowing how a bicycle works doesn't tell you where it's going.
So the recording of history started with those two books?
Of course not... they provide tools with which to analyse the historical data. But in themselves explain little. Like, my example of the dinosaurs or countless other environmental changes that actually influenced our history.
Nah, you're not my type. But thanks for the offer. x.
Maybe in the morning you might see what I am getting at, maybe not.
Similar threads
