[Marxism] The transition to capitalism: is it in our genes?

[Auguste Blanqui]

But just because you can't comprehensively explain a historical
development doesn't mean you can just make stuff up out of thin air.
You shouldn't reject magic a priori, I guess, but there's nothing to
support magic as an explanation, either.  Clark has a good data set
and just made up a good story to explain the paterns that preceded it.
 There's nothing that shows behavior is transmitted via genes.  And he
doesn't even get evolutionary theory right -- he's talking about a
dramatic change over the span of about a century!!!

On 8/7/07, Sayan Bhattacharyya <ok.president+marxmail at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > The latest explanation for the rise of the west is about as "internal"
> > as you can get. As reported in today's NY Times , Gregory Clark, a
> > historian at U. of California/Davis, says it is all in our genes!
> >
> >      Dr. Clark says the middle-class values needed for productivity
> > could have been transmitted either culturally or genetically. But in
> > some passages, he seems to lean toward evolution as the explanation.
>
> Louis,
>
> Just because we would all feel better if the explanation were not a
> genetic one (I know I certainly would), should not mean that we should
> reject that explanation _a priori_.
>
> The world, unfortunately, is as it is, not as _we_ would like to be.
> So, whether the genetic explanation is correct or not, should be
> decided (like everything else) on merits and quality of the
> evidence/argument, and on that only. That would be the proper
> scientific thing to do.
>
> _A priori_, genetic explanations should not be rejected out of hand.
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>