Subject: Go to hell, mother fucker |
Author:
Jose Estaline
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 23:58:00 08/07/02 Wed
In reply to:
Howard Sherman
's message, "Darwin and Marx" on 06:03:35 08/07/02 Wed
Now you must hear and support those mother fuckers from the USA.
It´s too much.
Don't you know God made America for the jerks?
>In spite of all qualifications listed above, it is
>correct to speak of a process of social change through
>stages of evolution (sublinhado meu). The analogy of
>Marxian with Darwinian evolution may even be extended
>to the selection mechanism. Marxian scholars discuss
>social evolution through competitive selection. This
>perspective, however, is very different from the
>conservative Social Darwinism, which claims that an
>individual who is at the top of society financially
>(such as Ross Perot) is necessary fitter or better
>than the poor. In contrast, in the Marxian view
>individual wealth is largely a function of existing
>class relations and financial inheritance.
>Using the historical approach, Marxian social
>scientists do expect the best adapted mode of
>production to be more likely to survive in the very
>long run, provided that civilization on the earth is
>not destroyed in a nuclear war or environmental
>disaster. That society will probably survive which is
>best adapted to the fullest development of both
>technology and human potential. The phrase best
>adapted however, must be defined very carefully. When
>the Mongols wiped out the Persian civilization, they
>were no doubt stronger and better adapted to that
>environment in a military sense, but the destruction
>of Persia did mean the end of a flourishing cultural
>activity for a long period. Similarly, that the soviet
>system lost out to U.S. capitalism reflects the
>weakness of the soviet system but does not prove the
>superiority of the U.S. system in any ethical or
>cultural sense."
>mais á frente ele afirma:
>"Because most Marxian writers assert that the best
>adapted economic system has a higher probability of
>survival, in this very limited sense critical Marxian
>social scientists tend to be guardedly optimistic
>concerning the direction of present history. The
>competitive evolutionary process between societies
>only operates over a long time span, and nothing
>guarantees that civilization, as a Whole, will survive
>if there is a nuclear or environmental disaster.
>These, however are long term probabilities and
>tendencies based on experience of the past competition
>of groups and societies, not inevitable laws
>describing what will happen. Marxism is, thus, "a
>theory that did acknowledge overall directionality to
>historical change, but rejected the view that
>directionality implies a unique path and sequence of
>events" (Wright, Levine, and Sober 1992, 79)"
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |