Bruce,
To borrow another well known phrase, "Some see the donut, others see the
hole."
The main problem with the primatologist interpretation is the use of the
term "capitalism" since there is absoltely no "capital" involved in their
example. The exchange of labor for goods is not a definition of
"capitalism" and exists in many modes of production. Surely they aren't
trying to say that some of the monkeys had nothing to exchange but their own
labor power!!! Maybe they should try to introduce some kind of money and
see if some of the monkeys can use the money to gain control of all the
means of production and then kick back while other monkeys do all the work.
But it took humans several thousand years to develop such a system and I
don't know if the primatologists can get funding to conduct research
intended to last that long :)
On the other hand, the study is a good verification of activity theory! The
scientists introduced a new instrument that required a change in the
technical division of labor that thereby resulted in a change in the
patterns of distribution. From the marxist perspective this would be a
change in the technical relations of production resulting in a
transformation of the patterns of distribution (social relations of
production).
Sort of like taking Priestley's dephlogistinated air and discovering oxygen.
Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:21:14 PDT