Perfection of Darwinian species definition ; rebuttal of E. O. Wilson, Dawkins , et al.

Bottomline is in vertebrates, mammals , primates , hominoids , hominins and genus homo , if two individual organisms , FEMALE AND MALE, mate and produce fertile offspring, they are the same species, by the perfect Darwinian definition of exclusively sexually reproducing species .

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/definition-of-species-in-darwinian.html

The standard species definition’s perfection for Darwinian natural selection logic is demonstrated in my response below to Dawkins , Wilson , et al.:

Yes what is selected for is a pheno_type_ and its geno_type_. “Group” would imply a species. The genotype can only be passed on to future generations within a species , because only members of opposite sexes of the same species can mate and produce fertile offspring in an exclusively sexually reproducing species such as humans . The meaning of a genotype being selected for is that that genotype is successfully passed on to future generations. The only future generations that genotypes can be passed on to are future members of the same species.

Thus , the “group” that is selected for is all of the same species , and its being selected for is its species being selected for.

The two individuals of opposite sexes mating and producing fertile offspring is the perfect definition for Darwinian sexually reproducing species , because for Darwinism survival of a species means continuing reproduction and passing on species genotypes/phenotypes down through generations, which can only happen among males and females producing fertile offspring .

None of the discussion below challenges my assertion that this is the perfect definition for being members of the same Darwinian species.

Of course , children of a mother are the same species as the mother and vica versa ; same for biological father and children

See Marshall Sahlins’s critique of Wilsonian social Darwinism in _The Uses and Abuses of Biology_, wherein he demonstrates that Wilson does not adequately take account of the role of language and culture ( kinship ) in human Darwinian natural history and evolution which differentiates it from the evolution and natural history of other species.

Wilson : “ : Wilson’s main focus in On Human Nature (Wilson, 1978) and to a lesser extent the last chapter of Sociobiology (Wilson, 1975) is to show that such a science is possible, ”

CB : Such a science already exists and had existed for decades in 1978; it’s anthropology

AAA is in theoretical anarchy . Anyway , biological anthropology, human evolutionary anthropology, archaeology has so much science in it it isn’t funny - Geology , physics , chemistry, physiology, genetics , Darwinism . Look at a biological anthropology text book .

However, ethnology is scientific in that it makes generalizations and theories based on evidence collected in fieldwork of both culture and language, linguistics being a sub field of anthropology. Linguistics and semiotics are scientific.

On ethnological scientific theory see Claude Levi-Strauss, Marshall Sahlins

CB: "The reality is that for more than 50 years there has been a debate in anthropology as to whether Neanderthals are Homo sapiens because their brain size is bigger than homo sapiens. My professors at the University of Michigan lectured on this .

In the last few years , anthropologists have discovered Neanderthals dna in living Homo sapiens. This is proof positive that we and Neanderthals are the same species, because it means Neanderthals and Homo sapiens mated and produced fertile offspring.

the account of Neanderthals as a separate species is wrong . There are Neanderthal genes in living Homo sapiens. That could only happen if Neanderthals are Homo sapiens. QED We know all about ligers ; they aren’t fertile.

Donkeys and horses can produce mules . Mules are not fertile, so donkeys and horses are not the same species . Have to produce viable and _fertile_ offspring to be the same species .

If bono Bo’s and chimps produce a _fertile_ offspring they are the same species by the perfect definition of species ,


Dogs and wolves are the same species; have same name. To the extent any cross breed offsprings are fertile , it just means they aren’t cross breeds , but the same species.

It is C J who makes circular arguments by assuming two types are different species and then saying that when they mate and produce fertile offspring that it’s different species producing fertile offspring. No what it means is your assumption that they were different species in the first place was wrong .

@@@@@@@@@@@&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Farmelant :" The explanation of altruism via kin selection was developed by William Hamilton in the early 1960's and it laid the basis for the gene-centered view of evolution that was promoted by Goerge Williams, John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins. It was embraced too by E. O. Wilson when he wrote his book Sociobiology. But later on, he changed his mind about. Wilson was one of a number of scientists who would attempt to revive the notion of group selection which had been rejected by the gene-centered evolutionists. Richard Dawkins did not take Wilson's change of mind very well.

Like I said, Dawkins did not take E. O. Wilson's change of mind too well.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ya_9-06MIQ

But at least Dawkins is sad over Wilson's passing. https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1475495291923189762

CB: if Dawkins, Wilson kinselection were true , the most efficient way to get "kin" genes into future generations would be through incest. Humans have the opposite of this : incest taboo

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/is-human-nature-social-or-selfish.html

Is human nature social or selfish ?

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/05/is-human-nature-social-or-selfish-i.html

by Charles D. Brown

I recently had a chance to teach anthropology for the first time, after a school career with two anthropology degrees. One student asked "what does anthropology matter ? what difference does it make ?". Good , mature questions for a high school student.

One way that anthropology might help us in the here and now is to bring scientific and biological paleontological evidence, from the Stone Age 100,000's of years ago, to bear on the question of what is human nature today ? Is it human nature to be greedy and selfish like Wall Street billionaires ? Or is it human nature to share and "love thy neighbor as thyself" ?

_Sapiens_" means "wise" In Latin.

Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man"(sic) ) is the scientific name for the human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominin ;H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, which differentiates us from what has been argued to be our direct ancestors, Homo erectus and homo ergaster

What is humans' unique nature ? What is culture ?

For anthropology, culture is the unique species characteristic of _homo sapiens_.

@@@@@ (1. Culture is human behavior in the form of symbolic rules and purposes, symbolic acts. It is learned not genetically inherited , learned from other people's symbolic acts .

2. All culture can be represented in language .

Language is crucial in the teaching of culture .

3. All language is culture, but not all culture is language.

4) Behavior is bodily action, activity , "doing", bodily motion .

(http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/anthropological-definition-of-culture.html ) @@@

In a sense, "culture" is another word for "wisdom", from the notion that humans are the species _homo wise_. It is humans' socially learned practices, customs, language, traditions, beliefs, religion, spirituality that make us "wise" in so many ways, certainly clever and winners _as a species_ ( not just as a few "fit" Individuals) in the struggles and snuggles to survive as a species. Since the advent of civilization, sometimes it's not so clear how wise our culture makes us. Therein lies the central drama of the history of the human species. Nonetheless, clearly in the Stone Age, our having language and culture was a highly adaptive advantage over species that did not have culture , stone tools made through culture, etc, raising our species fitness. This is evidenced by _homo sapiens_ expanding in population and therefore migrating to an expanded area of living space across the earth , out of what is now Africa to the other continents. Stone Age foraging and kinship organized societies were the mode of life for the vast majority of time of human species 'existence, 85% or more.

The first human societies had an extraordinarily high survival need to be able to rely on each other at levels of solidarity that we cannot even imagine. The intensity of the network of social connections of a band of 25 to 50 people living in the ecological food chain location would almost constitute a new level of organic organization and integrity above individual bodies; ancient kinship/culture systems as super-organic bodies; the human social group as harmonious multi-individual Body, organism. The Individual human bodies, all of the Some Bodies , were very frail and weak relative to the field of predators they were escaping. Up-right posture made them slower runners, too ! The dominance of the food chain that humans ultimately reached even in the Stone Age could be reached only by super-social , super internally-cooperative, super-intra-species harmony, because they had relatively_frail_ individual bodies, and needed each other's support. It is clear to me that natural selection picked hominid groups with policies of "love thy neighbor as thyself " and "charity" over those that might have derived principles of "selfishness and greed", if there were any in the Stone Age before Civilization. Institutionalized war would have been selected against through the whole Stone Age.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@"@@@@@@@@@@@@@"@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/05/culturally-inherited-adaptations-give.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/theses-on-humanity.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/09/survival-of-nice-and-fertile.html

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/05/identifying-something-with-something-it.html

Quantum Fields

https://youtu.be/zNVQfWC_evg

Philosophical Contradictions of Transgender Worldview

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/02/20971/ The Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender Worldview eople say that we live in a postmodern age that has rejected metaphysics. That’s not quite true. We live in a postmodern age that promotes an alternative metaphysics. As I explain in When Harry Became Sally, at the heart of the transgender moment are radical ideas about the human person—in particular, that people are what they claim to be, regardless of contrary evidence. A transgender boy is a boy, not merely a girl who identifies asa boy. It’s understandable why activists make these claims. An argument about transgender identities will be much more persuasive if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: people are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the claim. Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim.

(CB: And it's an absurd scientific/medical claim !)

And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause. Thus the American Psychological Association, in a pamphlet titled “Answers to Your Questions about Transgender People, Gender Identity, and Gender Expression,” tells us, “Transgender is an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not conform to that typically associated with the sex to which they were assigned at birth.” Notice the politicized language: a person’s sex is “assigned at birth.”

(CB: Sex is _reported_ at birth, not assigned !).


Back in 2005, even the Human Rights Campaign referred instead to “birth sex” and “physical sex.” The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex. In an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2, Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Dr. Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015). Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

(CB: How absurd ! malpratice !)

This is a remarkable claim, not least because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct. (CB !!!)

Adkins doesn’t say whether she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? And if medical science holds that gender identity determines sex in humans, what does this mean for the use of medicinal agents that have different effects on males and females? Does the proper dosage of medicine depend on the patient’s sex, or on his or her gender identity?

But what exactly is this “gender identity” that is supposed to be the true medical determinant of sex? Adkins defines it as “a person’s inner sense of belonging to a particular gender, such as male or female.”

Note that little phrase “such as,” implying that the options are not necessarily limited to male or female. Other activists are more forthcoming in admitting that gender identity need not be restricted to the binary choice of male or female, but can include both or neither. The American Psychological Association, for example, defines “gender identity” as “a person’s internal sense of being male, female, or something else.” Adkins asserts that being transgender is not a mental disorder, but simply “a normal developmental variation.” And she claims, further, that medical and mental health professionals who specialize in the treatment of gender dysphoria are in agreement with this view.(CB: The inmates are truly running the asylum !!) Transgender Catechism These notions about sex and gender are now being taught to young children. Activists have created child-friendly graphics for this purpose, such as the “Genderbread Person.” The Genderbread Person teaches that when it comes to sexuality and gender, people have five different characteristics, each of them falling along a spectrum. There’s “gender identity,” which is “how you, in your head, define your gender, based on how much you align (or don’t align) with what you understand to be the options for gender.” The graphic lists “4 (of infinite)” possibilities for gender identity: “woman-ness,” “man-ness,” “two-spirit,” or “genderqueer.” The second characteristic is “gender expression,” which is “the way you present gender, through your actions, dress, and demeanor.” In addition to “feminine” or “masculine,” the options are “butch,” “femme,” “androgynous,” or “gender neutral.” Third is “biological sex,” defined as “the physical sex characteristics you’re born with and develop, including genitalia, body shape, voice pitch, body hair; hormones, chromosomes, etc.” The final two characteristics concern sexual orientation: “sexually attracted to” and “romantically attracted to.” The options include “Women/Females/Femininity” and “Men/Males/Masculinity.” Which seems rather binary. The Genderbread Person tries to localize these five characteristics on the body: gender identity in the brain, sexual and romantic attraction in the heart, biological sex in the pelvis, and gender expression everywhere. he Genderbread Person presented here is version 3.3, incorporating adjustments made in response to criticism of earlier versions. But even this one violates current dogma. Some activists have complained that the Genderbread Person looks overly male. A more serious fault in the eyes of many activists is the use of the term “biological sex.” Time magazine drew criticism for the same transgression in 2014 after publishing a profile of Laverne Cox, the “first out trans person” to be featured on the cover. At least the folks at Time got credit for trying to be “good allies, explaining what many see as a complicated issue,” wrote Mey Rude in an article titled “It’s Time for People to Stop Using the Social Construct of ‘Biological Sex’ to Defend Their Transmisogyny.” (It’s hard to keep up with the transgender moment.) But Time was judged guilty of using “a simplistic and outdated understanding of biology to perpetuate some very dangerous ideas about trans women,” and failing to acknowledge that biological sex “isn’t something we’re actually born with, it’s something that doctors or our parents assign us at birth.” Today, transgender “allies” in good standing don’t use the Genderbread Person in their classrooms, but opt for the “Gender Unicorn,” which was created by Trans Students Educational Resources (TSER). It has a body shape that doesn’t appear either male or female, and instead of a “biological sex” it has a “sex assigned at birth.” Those are the significant changes to the Genderbread Person, and they were made so that the new graphic would “more accurately portray the distinction between gender, sex assigned at birth, and sexuality.” According to TSER, “Biological sex is an ambiguous word that has no scale and no meaning besides that it is related to some sex characteristics. It is also harmful to trans people. Instead, we prefer ‘sex assigned at birth’ which provides a more accurate description of what biological sex may be trying to communicate.” The Gender Unicorn is the graphic that children are likely to encounter in school. These are the dogmas they are likely to be catechized to profess. While activists claim that the possibilities for gender identity are rather expansive—man, woman, both, neither—they also insist that gender identity is innate, or established at a very young age, and thereafter immutable. Dr. George Brown, a professor of psychiatry and a three-time board member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), stated in his declaration to the federal court in North Carolina that gender identity “is usually established early in life, by the age of two to three years old.” Addressing the same court, Dr. Adkins asserted that “evidence strongly suggests that gender identity is innate or fixed at a young age and that gender identity has a strong biological basis.” (At no point in her expert declaration did she cite any sources for any of her claims.) Transgender Contradictions If the claims presented in this essay strike you as confusing, you’re not alone. The thinking of transgender activists is inherently confused and filled with internal contradictions. Activists never acknowledge those contradictions. Instead, they opportunistically rely on whichever claim is useful at any given moment. Here I’m talking about transgender activists. Most people who suffer from gender dysphoria are not activists, and many of them reject the activists’ claims. Many of them may be regarded as victims of the activists, as I show in my book. Many of those who feel distress over their bodily sex know that they aren’t really the opposite sex, and do not wish to “transition.” They wish to receive help in coming to identify with and accept their bodily self. They don’t think their feelings of gender dysphoria define reality. But transgender activists do. Regardless of whether they identify as “cisgender” or “transgender,” the activists promote a highly subjective and incoherent worldview. On the one hand, they claim that the real self is something other than the physical body, in a new form of Gnostic dualism, yet at the same time they embrace a materialist philosophy in which only the material world exists. They say that gender is purely a social construct, while asserting that a person can be “trapped” in the wrong gender. They say that there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that “gender identity” is real, while human embodiment is not. They claim that truth is whatever a person says it is, yet they believe there’s a real self to be discovered inside that person. They promote a radical expressive individualism in which people are free to do whatever they want and define the truth however they wish, yet they try ruthlessly to enforce acceptance of transgender ideology. It’s hard to see how these contradictory positions can be combined. If you pull too hard on any one thread of transgender ideology, the whole tapestry comes unraveled. But here are some questions we can pose: If gender is a social construct, how can gender identity be innate and immutable? How can one’s identity with respect to a social construct be determined by biology in the womb? How can one’s identity be unchangeable (immutable) with respect to an ever-changing social construct? And if gender identity is innate, how can it be “fluid”? The challenge for activists is to offer a plausible definition of gender and gender identity that is independent of bodily sex. Is there a gender binary or not? Somehow, it both does and does not exist, according to transgender activists. If the categories of “man” and “woman” are objective enough that people can identify as, and be, men and women, how can gender also be a spectrum, where people can identify as, and be, both, or neither, or somewhere in between? What does it even mean to have an internal sense of gender? What does gender feel like? What meaning can we give to the concept of sex or gender—and thus what internal “sense” can we have of gender—apart from having a body of a particular sex? Apart from having a male body, what does it “feel like” to be a man? Apart from having a female body, what does it “feel like” to be a woman? What does it feel like to be both a man and a woman, or to be neither? The challenge for the transgender activist is to explain what these feelings are like, and how someone could know if he or she “feels like” the opposite sex, or neither, or both. Even if trans activists could answer these questions about feelings, that still wouldn’t address the matter of reality. Why should feeling like a man—whatever that means—make someone a man? Why do our feelings determine reality on the question of sex, but on little else? Our feelings don’t determine our age or our height. And few people buy into Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman, since she is clearly not. If those who identify as transgender are the sex with which they identify, why doesn’t that apply to other attributes or categories of being? What about people who identify as animals, or able-bodied people who identify as disabled? Do all of these self-professed identities determine reality? If not, why not? And should these people receive medical treatment to transform their bodies to accord with their minds? Why accept transgender “reality,” but not trans-racial, trans-species, and trans-abled reality? The challenge for activists is to explain why a person’s “real” sex is determined by an inner “gender identity,” but age and height and race and species are not determined by an inner sense of identity. Of course, a transgender activist could reply that an “identity” is, by definition, just an inner sense of self. But if that’s the case, gender identity is merely a disclosure of how one feels. Saying that someone is transgender, then, says only that the person has feelings that he or she is the opposite sex. Gender identity, so understood, has no bearing at all on the meaning of “sex” or anything else. But transgender activists claim that a person’s self-professed “gender identity” is that person’s “sex.” The challenge for activists is to explain why the mere feeling of being male or female (or both or neither) makes someone male or female (or both or neither). Gender identity can sound a lot like religious identity, which is determined by beliefs. But those beliefs don’t determine reality. Someone who identifies as a Christian believes that Jesus is the Christ. Someone who identifies as a Muslim believes that Muhammad is the Final Prophet. But Jesus either is or is not the Christ, and Muhammad either is or is not the Final Prophet, regardless of what anyone happens to believe. So, too, a person either is or is not a man, regardless of what anyone—including that person—happens to believe. The challenge for transgender activists is to present an argument for why transgender beliefs determine reality. Determining reality is the heart of the matter, and here too we find contradictions. On the one hand, transgender activists want the authority of science as they make metaphysical claims, saying that science reveals gender identity to be innate and unchanging. On the other hand, they deny that biology is destiny, insisting that people are free to be who they want to be. Which is it? Is our gender identity biologically determined and immutable, or self-created and changeable? If the former, how do we account for people whose gender identity changes over time? Do these people have the wrong sense of gender at some time or other? And if gender identity is self-created, why must other people accept it as reality? If we should be free to choose our own gender reality, why can some people impose their idea of reality on others just because they identify as transgender? The challenge for the transgender activist is to articulate some conception of truth as the basis for how we understand the common good and how society should be ordered. As I document in depth in When Harry Became Sally, the claims of transgender activists are confusing because they are philosophically incoherent. Activists rely on contradictory claims as needed to advance their position, but their ideology keeps evolving, so that even allies and LGBT organizations can get left behind as “progress” marches on. At the core of the ideology is the radical claim that feelings determine reality. From this idea come extreme demands for society to play along with subjective reality claims. Trans ideologues ignore contrary evidence and competing interests; they disparage alternative practices; and they aim to muffle skeptical voices and shut down any disagreement. The movement has to keep patching and shoring up its beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing the heretics, and punishing apostates, because as soon as its furious efforts flag for a moment or someone successfully stands up to it, the whole charade is exposed. That’s what happens when your dogmas are so contrary to obvious, basic, everyday truths. A transgender future is not the “right side of history,” yet activists have convinced the most powerful sectors of our society to acquiesce to their demands. While the claims they make are manifestly false, it will take real work to prevent the spread of these harmful ideas. About the Author RYAN T. ANDERSON Ryan T. Anderson is Founding Editor of Public Discourse. He is also President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment and Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. He is... READ MORE

Theses on Humanity

By Charles Brown Objective reality exists (Lenin); this is the definition of materialism . Humans uniquely of all animals think of objective reality in words or symbolic signs ( see semiotics) . So, human practice , activity , action behavior is in the form of the anthropological concept of culture or symbolic sign / word ruled behavior ( see anthropologists Leslie A. White and Marshall Sahlins ; Charles Brown definition of culture and language ).

This Cultural behavior is the Hegelian unity of the universal / practice contradiction. For Hegel, the proof of the pudding recipe is in the eating , the proof ( or disproof ) of the recipe theory is in the taste of the eating ; or as Marx has it , the proof of the truth of theory is in practice ( human practice is cultural activity).

Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach is Marx’s dialectical critique of materialism, activist materialism ( see CB essay “ Activist Materialism “). It boils down to a Hegelian critique of all previous materialism: humans practice thinkingly ( in words or symbolic signs), uniting the universal , which is in their language or words, and practice . And the truth or falsity of that thinking is proven in that practice.

Reproductive practice is the primary or direct determinant of selves , human thinking subjects ; productive activity is the secondary or indirect determinant ( see CB “For Women’s Liberation “

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/07/for-womens-liberation-comradely.html)

The origin of language and culture was in childcare or reproductive labor circa 2.5 million years ago with Homo habilis, beginning of the Stone Age or toolmaking based on imagination or a “blueprint” like an architect ( See Marx in Capital on unique characteristic of human labor) . We know this because the Stone tools are made in styles or with thinking in symbolic signs / words . I hypothesize that the invention of words ( using something to represent something it is not ; arbitrary relation between sign and thing signified) was mothers inventing names for children for more efficient childcare. This is a materialist hypothesis because it is in the material practice of reproduction . Necessity is the mother of invention is a folk aphorism statement of the materialism philosophical principle.

The Ancestor Veneration of Stone Age peoples , Hegel’s universal or Idea religions’ supernatural/ immortal gods /God, Natural ( non-supernatural) Soul are all Culture and Language ( collective consciousness) or knowledge passed from _dead_ generations to living generations. This gives those dead generations a certain ( but not literal ) immortality. ( with religions gods are literally and fictionally attributed immortality) . Passing knowledge down through generations is a unique human capacity made possible because of the displacement capacity that symbolic signs give to human communication.

( see https://owlcation.com/stem/The-difference-between-animal-and-human-communication on displacement; displacement is the ability to communicate regarding that which is not concrete, not immediately available to the senses , not in the present, but in the past , future or physically far away)

. Thereby knowledge accumulates over the generations as in the scientist Isaac Newton’s saying that he stood on the shoulders of giants ( Newton is venerating his ancestors). Newton is able to share the experiences of dead generations. No other species can do this .


Phylogenetic logic or Darwin’s Tree of Life Logic is a dialectical logic. In evolution Ancestral Genus characteristics are preserved , and new species characteristics naturally selected overcome ancestral characteristics. Evolution is a dialectical process , not surprisingly-smiles


In human evolution, Antoinette Blackwell’s critique of Darwin is that it is the “survival of the nicest” ( http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/09/survival-of-nice-and-fertile.html) - cooperation and balance between humans , not savage rivalry and competition, is selected for; especially cooperation and balance between females and males because heterosexual mating , not success in the struggle for existence, is the most powerful determinant of fitness ; fitness is success in passing on genotypes to future generations. This success is only indirectly determined by success in the struggle for existence; it is directly determined in reproduction, including child rearing . Furthermore, for humans , their original success in the struggle for existence through the 2.5 million years of the Stone Age is cooperative, not individual; it is from each according to ability for the group , to each according to need . So individual fighting ability effectiveness is shared with the group (not used against other humans in “competition and savage rivalry “, Blackwell’s words) .

It is Individual _courting_ ability that is selected for; therefore larger and smarter brains are selected for by courting success from Homo habilis through Homo sapiens; not so much by individual success in the struggle for existence.


Language and culture give humans a LaMarckian-Like adaptive mechanism: the adaptation is caused by the adaptive problem that it solves ; it does not arise randomly relative to the problem it solves as with selection for genetic mutations that arise randomly relative to the adaptive problems that they solve .

( http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/05/culturally-inherited-adaptations-give.html)

Why is written history a history of class struggles? Why is the principle of historical materialism true ? See my essay “Materialism, Necessity and Freedom : Rehearsal of The Fundamentals of Marxism“ “ http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2021/12/materialism-necessity-and-freedom.html

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/annotation-of-marxs-theses-on-feuerbach.html

Activist Materialism

Activist Materialism and the End of Philosophy and THEORETICAL THINKING IN GENERAL

By Charles Brown

The First Theses on Feuerbach , by Karl Marx is as follows:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism (that of Feuerbach included) is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the OBJECT OF CONTEMPLATION, but not as SENSUOUS HUMAN ACTIVITY, PRACTICE, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the ACTIVE side was developed abstractly by idealism ---which , of course,does not know real, sensuous activity as such. Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as OBJECTIVE activity. Hence, in DAS WASEN des CHRISTENTHUMS, he regards the theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while practice is coneived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical (sic) manifestation. Hence, he does not grasp the significance of "revolutionary",of "practical-critical" , activity. (end quote).

We can see that Marx distinguished his materialism from all previous materialisms by treating the subject (the human individual) as materially active; not just ideally active as in idealisms; and not only contemplative of the material world as with the previous materialisms. Marx's is an activist materialism, very much in the sense of the modern term "political activist". As the well known 11th Thesis on Feuerbach says, for Marxists the point is to change the world; change the world through activism , practical-critical activity in the material world.

On the other hand, in recent times many Marxist activists and militants have acted as if with Marx, Engels and Lenin, we had reached the end of philosophy.This reminds of the recent bourgeois book on the end of history. Both the end of history and the end of philosophy are foolish notions for activist materialists to hold. For, in the First Thesis above it is the philosophical subject with self-determination and power that is the key and only actor, the only changer of the world. The error of leaving philosophy dormant seems to be that in focussing on the activism of Marx's materialism, in focussing on changing the world, it is assumed that PHILOSOPHICAL interpretation and contemplation of the world are to be dropped or that very little time should be spent in them by activists. This may "derive" from the 11th Thesis which says 'Philosophers have interpreted the world in a number of ways; the thing is to change it." Yet, this does not say stop interpreting the world and try to change it. And the First Thesis' active subject (objects are not actors) key for change , only source of change, is only understood as a philosophical subject. Thus, for revolutionary activity , we still need philosophical consciousness and especially in activists and militants, professional revolutionaries.

So for all who emphasize doing , not sitting around talking, acting , action, technical philosophy is more important than is usually thought.

PART II: THE ERRORS OF PRAGMATISM

So there is an paradox in that the common sense idea that philosophy, especially academic philosophy, is a hindrance to ACTION is the opposite of the truth. Philosophy is important for comprehending the active subject , the only potential revolutionary actor.(or actor period). I know that most Americans, including most Marxists, socialists, progressives, Committees of Corresponders, will object and reject the notion of raising actual, "technical" philosophical terminology and concepts with ourselves and masses of people. They'll call it elitist, academic, sectarian, sitting around b.s.'ing, intellectual, eggheaded and on and on. The well founded fear is that this will turn most Americans off and isolate us in yet another way. After all, its bad enough that we already use too many economic technical terms such as "exploitation", "means of production", "accumulation", etc.

These concerns must not be ignored. But it's time for Americans, including Marxists, to grow-up intellectually. No, we cannot lead, inspire, organize and win effective revolutionary ACTION based on the concepts and words now in the average American's vocabulary. Marx in the Theses on Feuerbach corrected the then predominant error of materialism which was the failure to treat the subject (the acting individual person) as active. Today, in America, we have all attention to action, activism, but have fallen into the error of a certain folk Pragmatism, that is action, action, action without extensive simultaneous philosophical interpretation and contemplation. We should not drop the attention to action and practice as fulfillment and test of philosophical interpretation and theory, but we must pick up more philosophy.

PT. III :"THE DENIGRATION OF SUBJECTIVITY"

The C.P.U.S.A. ( and perhaps other Communist Parties around the world) frequently draws attention to the 11th and final thesis of the Theses on Feuerbach, as mentioned above, which is as follows:

The philosophers have only INTERPRETED the world, in various ways: the point is to CHANGE it.

This call to action is important in avoiding academic, bookish, Ivory Tower, revolutionism. For Karl Marx, an extremely bookish, philosophical fellow it was important to emphasize this. But bookishness is not a concrete problem today on the U.S. Left. Inadequate study and reading is a problem. The idea of this 11th theses was not that revolutionaries should _stop_ interpreting the world as philosophers and start changing it. No, the idea is to _continue_ interpreting the world as philosophers as a guide and aid , and in dialectical unity with changing it . Yet in practice, especially recently, the Communist Party and the U.S. Left fall into this Pragmatist error of anti-interpretation, anti-philosophy and anti-subjectivity.

As stated earlier, this anti-subjectivity in championing the 11th Thesis emphasis on action and changing the world is especially ironic in light of the First Thesis, because there Marx is founding a materialism that reactivates the subject and does not denigrate and neglect it. Marx' materialism unites in the subject contemplation with action. The active subject of the First Thesis is a key to the changing of the world of the 11th Thesis

Because the active subject, interpreting the world materialistically, (as an objective reality) is key for changing the world, Marxism must deal with both the subject or subjective reality and objective reality. In its recent history in communist parties, Marxism has emphasized the systematic theory and practice of political economy and objective reality. Subjective reality has been denigrated and neglected. It is treated as a sort of residual category that will just follow properly with scientific treatment of objective factors. Subjectivity or subjective reality is tabooed as a distorter of objective and scientific thought.

The "unscience" of recent Marxist subjectivity is not in the nature of subjectivity, but in the incomprehensive, unsystematic, inadequate observation and theorizing about subjectivity by Marxists.

The neglect of subjectivity is done in the name of getting into action, "doing something", not just sitting around talking and theorizing, "getting concrete," "concrete action". Oh, how many meetings have I been in where people think they have set things on the true Marxist course by firmly pronouncing one or a variation of these phrases. But, it is not only that, as Lenin pointed out, without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement, that is revolutionary ACTION. It is also true that the subject is the only potential actor and therefore revolutionary actor, agent, activist. Objects don't act. Revolutionaries must "master" the art of the subject; and only subjects can be artists of revolution, that is masters and mistresses of DOING. Besides when people emphasize action over talking and thinking, it as if they think it is an issue of "being determing consciousness" as Marx and Engels' philosophical slogan for materialism goes. Yet, the ACTION called for in a political meeting is not the productive activity of the working class. It is action which involves verbal and communication "action" in the form of speeches, pamphlets, all around propaganda and agitation of large numbers of people. So the contrast between "action" and "thought" is misleading.

If revolutionaries do not develop a more comprehensive and scientific understanding and practice of subjectivity, there will be no revolutionary "concrete action". To be revolutionary our work must be, in Marx's term, practical-critical.

The key to understanding subjectivity (personality, character) is women's liberation, as the oppression of women is the fundamental barrier to personality and subjective health. The emancipation of mass subjectivity and self-determination is necessary for democracy in society at large and in revolutionary organizations.

/////////:///////////////////////////// http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/what-is-to-be-done.html

Why So Many USA whites so messed up on race

https://www.counterpunch.org/category/counterpunch-plus/ Why So Many US-American Whites So Messed Up on Race Thirteen Reasons BY PAUL STREET Listening by chance to some United States of America (USA) “heartland” Caucasians spew racist nonsense in defense of the fascist teen vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse (the killer of two Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin), I was reminded once again that millions upon millions of US-American whites are badly F’d in the head when it comes to race. Vast swaths of white America believe wildly inaccurate things about race in their country, including the notions that Blacks make up 30% to 40% of the U.S. (the nation is 12% Black), that Blacks have become economically equal to whites (median Black household net worth is less than one sixteenth of median white household wealth), that Blacks are moving ahead of whites in terms of economic and political power, that Black people are criminal and indolent, and that whites and not Blacks are now the main victims of racial discrimination and oppression in the USA. For many if not most white Americans outside progressive Left and advanced liberal circles, racism no longer poses any significant barriers (if it ever did in their view) to Black advancement, safety, prosperity, and equality. The problem is especially dire, of course, on the right, amongst those who opinion pollsters label as “conservatives” – the predominantly white right-wingers who are militantly opposed to government action that might begin redress a small portion of the nation’s massive racial disparities. Insofar as they can acknowledge Black poverty and misery, millions and millions of white USAers understand Black pain and suffering as essentially self-inflicted and deserved. Never mind the plethora of research and investigation showing US-American social, political, and economic institutions function in such a way as to produce stark white-Black disparities in every relevant statistical measurement: wealth, poverty, income, employment, infant mortality, maternal mortality, exposure to pollution, life span, health coverage, criminal branding, incarceration, home ownership, police brutality, access to full service grocery stores, access to green space, access to doctors and dentists, access to banks and loans, exposure to COVID-19, and on and on.

origin of human consciousness for LEISURE

In _Capital_ , Marx says "imagination " ( a form of symboling ) is the differentia specifica of human labour from that of the spider or bee. But otherwise seems to consider labour as human species essence: thus _working_ class ethics.

Importantly , I doubt Marx and Engels realized or imagined that the Stone Age was 2.5 million years ; and that labour was very light in it; and that the genus homo lived by its wits and names , words and family trees more than by hard work with hands . Originally for our species the labour of the head is more important than hand labour ( which , anyway , is in a section of the brain or head) . Labour of the hand _is_ labour of the head .

This was in Morgan's Societas. With Civitas, civilization, starting 6,000 years ago, private property , greed, slavery invention of heavy , oppressed , exploited labour, slaves working so hard to produce surpluses, the wealth of the wealthy.

The human species instinct for less labour , not more, to meet our needs of individual self-preservation, our instinct for more leisure = freedom, IS THE NATURAL INSTINCT UNDERLYING OPPRESSED CLASSES STRUGGLE in the history of Morgan's Civitas (Marx and Engels's Written History in the first sentence of the Manifesto of the Communist Party). Class struggle is INSTINCTIVE for humans against class oppression, with toil, hard labour, as the main oppression imposed. That Marx and Engels treat class struggle against oppression as a Written History universal, a trans-historical category , implies that it is biologically , not culturally based.

I , Charles Brown, have a critique of Uncle Fred on this issue: unique human consciousness originates in reproductive practice , not practice in the struggle for existence.

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/01/shortening-of-work-day-is-realm-of.html

Anthropological definition of culture and language

1. Culture is human behavior in the form of symbolic rules and purposes, symbolic acts. It is learned not genetically inherited , learned from other people's symbolic acts . 2. All culture can be represented in language . Language is crucial in the teaching of culture . 3. All language is culture, but not all culture is language. 4) Behavior is bodily action, activity , "doing", bodily motion .

Speaking is practice in Vygotsky’s sense

The sounds of the word “dog” are not a dog. Using “dog” to represent a dog is using something to represent something it is not . That is an arbitrary relation between the word “ dog“ and actual dogs. That’s a symbolic sign in semiotics. An indexical sign has a natural or necessary relation between sign and thing signified ; like smoke is an indexical sign of fire . Speaking the word “dog” is behavior, action ,practice , doing something. Vygotsky’s theory of language acquisition focuses on behavior or practice- learning language through behavior-practice, but doesn’t seem to include speaking ( and listening ) as a practice through which language is learned . But speaking imitating adult speakers is the main way that children learn language .

Anthropology 152 Syllabus

WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Introduction to General Anthropology ANT 152 I. GENERAL COURSE INFORMATION Course Number: 36447 Day(s)/Time: 11:00am-12:25pm MW Course Name: General Anthropology Semester: Spring 2018 Course Section: ANT 152 Location: NW Prerequisites: None Corequisites: None Credit hours: 3 credit hours Contact Hours: 45 II. INSTRUCTOR INFORMATION: Instructor Charles D. Brown Office Hours: By Appointment Phone: E-mail: cb31450@gmail.com Mailbox# Fax: ​Academic Biography: I am an Adjunct Professor in anthropology. My interest and focus has been in studying human society biologically, historically and scientifically. I look forward to introducing you to the discipline of anthropology and exploring how it might help in making a better world today. I am confident that this will be a valuable experience for each of us. III. COURSE DESCRIPTION (from catalog) Learn the physical and cultural nature and, development of humans in relationship to their environment and each other. Learn about human physical variations, archaeology, linguistics, the nature and function of culture and the relevance and application of anthropology in modern society. ​ IV. EXPECTED COMPETENCIES At the end of this course students will be able to: 1. Expound on anthropology as the understanding of human societies and individuals biologically, historically, symbolically, and scientifically; 2. understand the meaning of “culture;” 3. understand the four (4) anthropological sub-fields: culture, physical, linguistics, and archaeology; 4. understand the long term history and evolution of human society and biology; 5. apply the scientific method in understanding others and ourselves; 6. understand the role of ethnographers in social studies, and the relevance and limitations of interpretation of other cultures; and 7. promote understanding, appreciation and acceptance of peoples of other cultures, societies and nations. V. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: This course will provide for: 1. Understanding the role and place of culture in human life; 2. understanding the role and place of culture in human evolution; 3. understanding the role of language in cultural developments; 4. developing a deep understanding in human physical and cultural diversity; be able to explain ethnocentrism; 5. understanding, to a limited extent, some aspects of other specific cultures; and 6. recognizing global changes and how anthropology might enhance understanding of them. VI. TEXT/MATERIALS: The Essence of Anthropology, by William A. Haviland, Harald Prins, Diane Walrath, Bunny McBride, 4th edition, ISBN 1-11118-3344-3. VII. INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGY During the course we use the following general format: (1) Students will read each new assigned chapter before the class period, and then attempt to answer the questions at the end of the chapter; and raise questions of their own for discussion in the next class. (2) The instructor will discuss and elaborate on the material in the chapters, focusing on certain aspects; and will ask students questions on the chapter material. (3) For some chapters there will be homework/ take home test assignments to be answered and submitted in writing. The Course Elements: 1. TESTS: There will be two (2) exams, a final worth 20 points; a mid-term worth 30 points; four (4) quizzes , each worth 12 points. The format of the tests will be multiple choice and short essay questions. All tests will cover information based specifically on the text book. Some tests and assignments are designed for critical thinking, which means that students should able to answer them by applying their comprehensive and analytical skills; and applying concepts that the instructor will emphasize in class discussions and lectures. The quizzes will consist of 4 to 5 short answers, based on the textbook and lectures. VIII. EVALUATION PROCEDURES (For Students to Calculate Final Grade):​ Grading Criteria % Scale: Mid-term Exam 25 A 100-90 Final Exam 25 B 89-80 two (2) quizzes, all take home 12, 5 each C 79-70 D 69-60 E Below 60 “W” Grades W Withdrawal Withdrawal by the student during the first half of the semester. (8th week) XW Walk-away Attended at least one class during the first third of the semester and failed to withdraw during the remaining two-thirds of the semester. Note: It is the policy of the Wayne County Community College District that the responsibility for dropping a class belongs to the student. Please pay attention to the drop dates and policies in academic schedule for each term. Incomplete Grade The awarding of an incomplete grade is at the discretion of the instructor; as long as the student has been attending the class, is passing and has an unforeseen emergency, an incomplete can be awarded. The "I" can only be given after the 12th week of the semester. Emergency circumstances are considered situations beyond the control of the student. The criteria to give an “I” grade are as follows: 1. The student must be passing the course. 2. The student must have to complete a contract which is mutually agreed upon by the student and the instructor. 3. The student must have a true emergency, such as emergency surgery. Change of Grade Recommendation A student who believes that a grade has been awarded unfairly or incorrectly should first contact the instructor who awarded the grade to discuss the issue and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the matter is not resolved to the student’s satisfaction, the student may appeal the grade to the Chief Academic Officer at the location where the course was offered. The student will be advised of the appeal process, which includes a written statement from the student and the instructor’s written response. A committee will be selected and a grade-appeal hearing will be scheduled. Grade appeals must be filed within 90 days of the conclusion of the semester or session during which the student was enrolled in the course where the challenged practice occurred. IX. COURSE REQUIREMENTS (Course Plan) Week Date Lesson Assignment/Project//Quiz/Midterm/Final Due date 1 2 Chap. 4 Hand out take home quiz on Chapt. 4. 2 wks from date it is handed out. 3 4 Read Chap. 2 Class lectures on Chaps. 2 and 4, with hand out charts supplementing text. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Read Cap. 7 Read Chaps. 6, 8 and 13 Read Chap. 9 and 10 Read Chap. 15 Take home quiz on Chap. 7 handed out on Feb. 16. Class lectures on Chaps. 6, 8 and 13 Midterm take home exam handed out. Take Home Final Exam 1 wk from date it is handed out. Midterm due one wk from day it is handed out Due wks from date it is handed out. X. CLASS RULES AND PROCEDURES: • Behavior Expectations: 1. Only registered students are allowed to attend classes. 2. Children are not allowed in the classroom. Unattended children are not allowed in LRC, Lab or hallways. 3. Cell phones and pagers must be turned off and stored away during class ​ 4.​Eating and Drinking in classrooms and labs are prohibited. • WCCCD Attendance Policy: ​It is required that attendance is recorded daily since many students are receiving ​state ​and federal money that requires positive attendance verification. You will receive a ​“0” for positive attendance verification if you do not attend one class session prior to ​the deadline date. You will not be reinstated into the course if you do not attend. ​Students that do NOT appear on the class roster will NOT receive a Final Grade ​from the course. ​ • Assignment Criteria: Typed or emailed • Acceptance of late work: • Policy for missed exams: • Extenuating circumstances: (Death in the family, Jury duty dates, hospitalizations) XI. SCHOLASTIC CODE OF ETHICS The purpose of this code is to encourage and promote positive learning and ethical student behavior, as well as, define behavior violating scholastic ethics. • GUIDELINES FOR SCHOLASTIC CODE OF ETHICS o Students assume full responsibility for the content and integrity of the course work they submit. The following is a guide to assist students in observing positive behavior in scholastic ethics. o Students must do their own work and submit only their own work on examinations, reports and projects, unless otherwise permitted by the instructor; o Students can benefit from working in groups. They may collaborate or cooperate with other students during take-home examinations only if specifically authorized by the instructor in the class syllabus or at the time of the examination; o Students must follow all written and/or verbal instructions given by the instructor or designated College representative prior to taking an examination, placement assessments, test, quizzes and evaluations; o Students are responsible for adhering to course requirements as specified by the instructor in the course syllabus. • SCHOLASTIC CODE OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS Students enrolled in college assume the obligation of conducting themselves in accordance with the highest ethical standards. Actions constituting violations of scholastic ethics include, but are not limited to the following: • CHEATING o Intentional deceit during the pursuit of academic course work, tests, class assignments or activities in any testing area, learning center, clinical setting or tutorial session, or in the gathering of research materials is considered cheating. Cheating includes but is not limited to: o Copying from another student’s test paper or knowingly allowing your test to be copied; o Using materials during a test that are not clearly authorized by the person giving the test; o Collaborating with another student during the test without permission; knowingly using, buying, selling, offering, transporting or soliciting any of the contents of a test; o Taking a test for another person, or permitting another student to take a test for you; o Bribing or attempting to bribe another person to obtain a passing grade or a better grade on a test or for a course; o Intentional misconstruing facts or incidents relating to an evaluated exercise or assignment that would change the earned grade; o Electronic, internet transmissions or wireless transfer of data. • PLAGIARISM The representation of the work of others as one's own, including the use of term papers written by others, is plagiarism. The use of another's words, ideas or information without acknowledgement is also plagiarism. The student should seek guidance from the instructor about acceptable methods to be used to acknowledge the work and ideas of others. • COLLUSION Obtaining from or giving to another student unauthorized assistance or material in any course work is collusion. • COMPROMISING INSTRUCTIONAL AND TEST MATERIALS Unauthorized acquisition, tampering with, or alteration of instructional and/or testing materials from desks, cabinets, work rooms, classrooms, laboratories, instructor's offices, tutoring labs, testing areas, assessment areas, secretarial offices, College offices and/or other areas is compromising test materials. • MISREPRESENTATION / FRAUD Unauthorized acquisition, tampering with, or alteration of instructional and/or testing materials from desks, cabinets, work rooms, classrooms, laboratories, instructor's offices, tutoring labs, testing areas, assessment areas, secretarial offices, College offices and/or other areas is compromising test materials. XII.​ACCESS/Learning Center – Student Support Services This program provides supportive services to special need students enrolled in career and technical programs at Wayne County Community College District. Resources are available according to individual needs and coordinators assessment and include services such as tutoring, visual aids, sign language interpreters, language interpreters and note takers, as well as special equipment often required to support academic success in college. Instructors and advisors may refer students who need assistance. However, students are welcome to come and discuss individual concerns without referrals. About This Program Disability Support Services at Wayne County Community College District (WCCCD) strives to provide students with the necessary tools to help them accomplish their educational and career goals. Students should o Be admitted to WCCCD through the regular admissions process, o After being admitted visit the Disability Services/ACCESS department, o Complete the intake and services/accommodation request forms, o Submit sufficient evidence/documentation of a physical, emotional and or prior learning disability, o Request reasonable accommodations during your meeting with the Disability Services Coordinator and o Meet with an ACCESS advisor to plan services and or an educational plan of work. Office Locations for ACCESS/Learning Center: Eastern: 313- 579-6916 XIII.​STUDENT FEEDBACK: SSOI SURVEYS In efforts to better service our students, The Division of Institutional Effectiveness (IE) provides routine online surveys for our students. Towards the end of the term, your assistance is needed to ensure that all students registered for courses at the NW campus complete the online surveys ​for each of their NW campus courses. The surveys only take a few minutes to complete and can be administered at the beginning or end of your class session. The data collected from these surveys provide evidence-based feedback to support continued assessment and strategic planning. This enables continuous improvement of the Districts services to students, faculty and staff. We hope that you will welcome this opportunity to assist us in obtaining feedback from our students regarding their needs and expectations. Survey link: www.wcccd.edu/dept/survey.htm 1

Materialism, Necessity and Freedom: Rehearsal of the Fundamentals of Marxism

Materialism, Necessity and Freedom: Rehearsal of the Fundamentals of Marxism

WHY IS HISTORY A HISTORY OF CLASS STRUGGLES ?

By Charles D. Brown

By the _Manifesto of the Communist Party_ every Marxist knows the A,B,C's of historical materialism or the materialist conception of history. The written history of hither to existing society, since the breaking up of the ancient Communist Stone Age kin group societies , is a history of class struggles between oppressor and oppressed. Classes are groups that associate in a division of labor to produce

their material means of existence. Why are class struggles fundamental in determining the whole of society's laws and rules, it's history and culture, the "super-structure" ? Because exploited classes are coerced into producing surpluses for exploiting classes by making supply of the physiological necessities of life, of self-preservation , to the exploited classes conditional upon their producing those surpluses. Not only do exploited classes produce the physiological and derivative material necessities of life for society , but they are denied much of the fruits of their labor , thrown into poverty , unless they supply the bosses, the ruling classes , the slave masters , Lords , Bishops , Bourgeoisie, with super fruits, riches .

Ruling classes coerce this exploitation mainly by control of the state power or special repressive apparatus.

In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels implied this elementary anthropological or "human natural" rationale for this conception of class relations determining substantially the shape of society as a whole in a section titled

"History: Fundamental Conditions” , they say: "*life involves before everything else eating and drinking, a habitation, clothing and many other things. The first historical act is thus the production of material life itself. And indeed this is an historical act, a fundamental condition of all history, which today, as thousands of years ago, must daily and hourly be fulfilled merely in order to sustain human life."

Production and economic classes are the starting point of Marxist analysis of human history and society because human life, like all plant and animal life must fulfill biological needs to exist as life at all. It is an appeal to biologic (which I support and imitate , all of the anti-vulgar materialist critiques to the contrary notwithstanding, but that's my other paper). Whatever humans do that is "higher" than plants and animals, we cannot do if we do not first fulfill or plant/animal like needs, physiological necessities.

Marx and Engels define scientific analysis as tracing the materially or objectively _necessary_ connections in a phenomenon. Thus, the scientific understanding of human society must be based in the materially necessary connections of human society. Fulfillment of physiological or biological requirments are the materially necessary "connections" for humans. These biological necessary connections exist in all human societies. But it is only in' class divided‘ society that , as said above, surpluses are extorted from exploited classes by ruling classes by employment and threat of deployment of the forces of destruction and violence, standing bodies of armed men , against the exploited and ruled classes less they disgorge the surplus fruits of their labor to the ruling classes.

For not only is supply of food, shelter, air etc. biologically and materially necessary for living. The _absence_ of being killed or bodily harmed by armed men is materially necessary to live. Thus, the mode of destruction is as central to the necessary connections of human society as the mode of production. The mode of destruction as critical in ruling class coercion and extortion of the ruled classes is a mode of necessity in human society and history. Thus the mode of necessity in human society consists in both the mode of production and the mode of destruction. On Materialism ( speaking of Mao), there are two levels of the relationship between thought and being: "economics" and "physics". While society remains in the Realm (or kingdom) of Necessity , society during its class divided history, ruling classes control masses by conditioning fulfillment of the _material_ needs of the exploited classes on the exploited classes ' producing surpluses for the ruling , exploiting classes. The materialism (determinism by the material) at this level derives from the coercive use of conditional provision of material needs. In all societies, including those in the Realm (kingdom of ) Freedom ( socialist, communist future and ancient) , all people must , of course, "obey" the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, objective reality etc. "physics", in the general sense. This is the most fundamental level of materialist theory , most fundamental level of Being.

The "higher" (cultural, semiotic. super-structural, social conditioning traditions, "super-natural, aesthetic, artistic, customary , aesthetic. etc.) human activities are limited or negatively determined ( See Marshall Sahlins' _Culture and Practical Reason_ on biological limits of culture) by the productive and destructive activities, the activities that produce biological necessities or deprive human biological necessities . Cultural practices that don’t provide necessities will go “extinct”.

However , in human systems of IDEAS, SYMBOLS, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, because of the arbitrary relation between sign and thing signified a non-necessary connection, there is some lack of basis for science defined as finding necessary connections ( Marx and Engels definition of science) In other words , Arbitrary_ connection is the opposite of _necessary_ connection. This is the sense in which superstructure is not subject to scientific analysis the way that infrastructure is. Idea systems do simulate necessity as rules, such as rules of grammar or cultural rules, including state enforced laws Also in formal logic, "necessary" arises in _modus ponens_, modus tolensor "if-then", if p, then q, q is a necessary > condition of p, i.e.not q,not p. This is arbitrary and abstract necessity.

In the Realm of Necessity, ( Marx and Engels used the term "necessity"here precisely to make the point I am making here) there is a science of human conduct based on the things that human must do, i.e. necessity. As Marx and Engels had to explain to "the Germans" in _The German Ideology_, humans have physiological necessities. In meeting these, there arise scientifically discernable necessary patterns in their behavior

historical materialism starts with human nature, our human natural species qualities, Feuerbach's "species-being” This is Marx's point in the famous passage in the Intro to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy concerning social being determining social consciousness "At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come in conflict with the existing relations of production, or - what is but a legal expression for the same thing -with the property relations within which they have been at work hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an epoch of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire immense superstructure is more or less rapidly transformed. In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic-conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, aesthetic or philosophic - in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as our opinion of an individual is not based on what he thinks of himself, so can we not judge such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. " Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface-abs

The economic conditions may be articulated "with the precision of a natural science" because in that sector of society biological necessities or needs are met, and as discussed above, thereby necessary connections reside. Necessary connections are the business of science.

The rational kernel of the fancy Marxist critique of we vulgar Marxists :

Being determines consciousness, but intermitently ; being determines consciousness discontinuously. ("primarily and ultimately"). Meanwhile, in between time, being and consciousness are reciprocally determiining. Being , in the form of class struggle, determines consciousness in history. However, the revolutions which are the points of determination or fundamental change ( of Hegel’s Idea ) by class struggle are intermittent and rare. Most of the time consciousness or ideology is not changing, is not in a revolutionary state of transformation. Most of the time society is in a status quo, a relative equilibrium , is not changing fundamentally.

This is somewhat analogous to the punctuated equilibrium of Stephen Jay Gould in natural history, with the punctuations being the revolutions when being determines, asserts itself, like the roof falling in periodically asserts the law of gravity, when contradictions reach a crisis. It is the long equilibria that cause the confusion and make people think that consciousness has determined being in history's revolutionary changes, or the idealist error. Also, there is a sense in which consciousness as a system of ideas does determine people's day to day conduct. When an idea grips the masses , it becomes a material force; and lots of ideas grip the masses. In fact , the masses only act based on ideas that grip them. What revolutions do is change the system of ideas that determines peoples' conduct. And only class struggles change systems of ideas or ideologies. This is the fundamental sense of being determines consciousness or part of the theory of historical materialism.

As Marx says "...so can we not judge such a period of transformation by its own consciousness; on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained rather from the contradictions of material life, from the existing conflict between the social productive forces and the relations of production. " "

In big historical changes, Necessity is the mother of invention, the mother of revolution. The necessary connections in economy and class structure periodically, though rarely , break through to "invent" a new superstructure , revolutionary ideas. Necessity is the mother of invention, new ideas. Ideology is the stabilizer of convention. Ideologies are formal logics, based on the principle of identity as their first principle. Formal logics are not "self-changing", they abdure contradictions ( non-identity) tend to sustain convention, avoid invention of new principles. This is why we don't think our way to revolution. This is why dialectical logic , with contradiction as its first principle, is rooted in class struggle , reflecting real or material contradictions.

The Second Thesis on Feuerbach - the test of theory is practice . Thus, the most practically reasonable and rational course is for the working class of our era to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism. This would be the optimum for the class self-interest of the working class , collectively and individually in its billions of people. Yet, we are in a lag time, the long lag time of the "equilibrium" before the punctuation of revolution.

Irrational ideas, from the standpoint of the working class as a class - for -itself , ideas in the interest of the Bourgeoisie of many types compete with the rational idea of revolutionary class struggle for gripping the consciousnesses , the billions individual brains of working masses. False consciousness, capitalist ideology is determining being, keeping it stuck in capitalist relations of production.

Do any of the fancy Marxist theories which interrogate the principle of being determines consciousness have solutions to the riddles of the irrational, anti-class self-interest ideologies, systems of ideas and images which are gripping the masses and blinding them to their historic revolutionary mission ? That is a question on consciousness for today's challengers to materialism who also claim to be Marxist in some sense. An even more fundamental understanding of consciousness must come through an augmented Marxist feminism. As the historically constituted class of oppressed and exploited reproductive or caring laborers, the creators of subjects en masse, women have been the uncredited makers of consiousness in history. This is not just in childrearing , although that is obviously important, but in all caring labor which is critical in shaping and repairing the self. This includes housework, for the house or the home is that shelter where the adult self is itself away from work in the capitalist daily geography of the person.Thus, women's liberation and recovery of women's history is fundamental to the science of consciousness.

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/07/for-womens-liberation-comradely.html

Materialism, Necessity and Freedom: Rehearsal of the Fundamentals of Marxism A three act play with beginning, middle and end, and non-dogmatic improvisation. Several vulgar parts . Double materialist determination; there are two levels of determination, in materialism attitude toward the relationship between thought and being: 1)"economics" and 2) "physics". 1)"economics" While society remains in the Realm of Necessity , ruling classes control masses by conditioning fulfillment of the _material_ needs of the exploited classes on the exploited classes ' producing surpluses for the ruling , exploiting classes. The materialism (determinism by the material) at this level derives from the coercive use of conditional provision of material needs.


2) "physics" In all societies, including those in the Realm of Freedom ( socialist, communist future and ancient) , all people must , of course, "obey" the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, objective reality etc. "physics", in the general sense. The first level above is based in the specific biological necessities of the second level. There is a third level of materialist determination in the Marxist thesis. It is also economic. Marx and Engels (Engels and Marx) claim that history is a history of class struggles.

The answer to the question "Why is history a history of class struggles ?" is the philosophy of historical materialism. Why is it that economic material relationship of exploiting and exploited classes causes the changes which are called "history" ? The alternatives at the time Marx wrote the thesis were especially Great Men in state and economic power and Big Ideas as in Philosophie of Great Men. Marx in wanting to take a scientific approach to the question, looked to necessity upon the theory that science details necessary connections between things. There is no necessity as strict in the realms of ideas or Great Men as the necessity of biology, and by extension the area of economics of material production of minimal life sustaining necessities or Being or Existence . There still must be made an argument as to why and what changes by class struggle determination in the sense that history is a history of class struggles. What changes through the course of history ? If it were the structure of the relationship between classes, then what about tautology ? So, Big Ideas (or Consciousness) and Great Men _types_ change as the change that is history.

However, Being determines consciousness intermittently, rarely in terms of the total time of the many generations of people. Most generations don't experience a fundamental or revolutionary change. And so on the rare, intermittent determinism of the structure of ideas by the Realm proper of Necessity:

http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1998-March/007351.html

Although biology only limits us partially in a sense because We human beings have culture (super-natures and natures ) this contradiction between biology and culture is still where it is at in generating universals or big generals.

Being determines consciousness is still a focal rule of thumb (guide to action) for building a universal, real common interests among huge numbers of people, the masses.

My first post-Marx development of species-being is to derive women's liberation organically from historical materialism's premises, as Marx and Engels derive workers' liberation from those species-being historical premises. It is a correction of classical Marxism, but based on Marxsim's own premises.


In ways its too vulgar for pomos and fancy marxists. However, the pomos and their old cousins, Frankfurt school, Gramsci, existentialists, et al. all the fancy marxists have taught us something: being determines consciousness discontinuously, intermittmently, rarely. Through most of the actual time of history ( day-to-day life; quotidien), consciousness and being are reciprocally determining. Only rarely, in revolutions, primarily and ultimately does being utterly determine consciousness. Today, that means that the direct naked appeal to the working class' class self-interest is inadequate in itself-necessary but not sufficient in the formal logical sense -to inspire revolution. That appeal cannot be dropped - the vast majority are working class, wage laborers - but must be complemented with appeals to other consciousness, other consciousness determined by being (race and gender are the main forms ) and consciousness that is determined more by consciousness , religion, television , school, peers . Overall one wants to change the world based on interpreting it, changing it through practical-critical activity, a unity of theory and practice still.

A thought is not what it thinks about but is artificially identified with what it thinks about

By Charles Brown “My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.” - Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm Perhaps to Hegel , the Idea is Language - Culture - Tradition- Custom - Religion -God , which derives from many generations of brains’ perceptual experience in objective reality or derives from those experiences as reflections of the material world into memories in many brains in the form of words . The Culture is a demiurge , or Natural Soul ( not supernatural, though it does give a certain finite immortality to dead generations through their words ) for individual living brains . The external world is not literally the same thing as the Ideal ; BUT humans conceive of the external world in the form of ideas or identifying ideas with the external world . _The_ human mind is the accumulation of language by and in many brains in communication with each other . A thought is not what it thinks about . The Idea ( a culture , a tradition, a language) is not what it is an idea about . Ideas and thoughts are in the form of words , symbolic signs - signs with an arbitrary relation , not necessary or natural relation , between signifier and thing signified. Words are not what they represent, not what they refer to . Words are artificially identified with what they represent, with their meaning . They are not really what they represent . Saussure : the word “donut” is not a donut Charles Brown : thus , by the word donut living generations can know about the tradition of dead generations eating donuts , because though the donuts are eaten and gone , the word “ donut” is not gone because it is not the donut . A word is not what it represents. A word poses as identical with what it represents. So, Use of language is a unity of opposites : identification of something with something it is not ( by definition of a word or symbolic sign ). For humans , most things, objects , processes , are identified and shaped by the words that represent them . Language , symbolic signs , mediate our perception of objective reality . Is this Hegel’s sense of the Idea alienating itself as nature ? ( as I believe he says ). The Idea is a Language or a Culture -Tradition-Custom. All human individual brains or subjectivities or consciousnesses relate to objective reality or experience or perceive or practice in objective reality through words, culture , by conceiving of it in language . In other words ( speaking of words ), the Idea as brain cells does not create objective reality like a 3-D printer , but humans only cognize and act in objective reality in ideas , words , sentences , paragraphs, books , libraries, songs , the World Wide Web. Words are invented by large numbers of individual brains , dead mostly and living ( now dead not dead when they invented the words . ) in the course of their practice in objective reality . So, another rational , truthful kernel in the objective idealists ,Hegel and Plato , is that for human individual brains -subjectivities , pretty much everything in their objective world is known to them clothed in ideals-ideas -words. The ideal and the real are _not_ each other , but are a unity of difference, a sameness of differences, unity of opposites. This is Hegel’s famous unity of subject-object , a unity of opposites. Remember words are constituted of the experiences of many generations of brains not just the brain of the individual thinking , perceiving and practicing in objective reality . Like Isaac Newton , all humans stand on the shoulders of giants , are scientists. Individual only observations of reality, ignoring the experiences an Individual shares with many other individuals through words , as the basis for scientific discovery is the error of positivism-empiricism .

Walter : “We need to get a 60% position in both the House and Senate to make the Republicans irrelevant. Then some of them will even cross over. “ CDB: Be a People’s Lawyer. Advocate for Democrats. We must be critical of Republicans. Gotta get straight to the bottomline of the whole sausage making process: it was the Republicans. The two Democrats in the Senate were a tiny fraction of the Democrats. Overall the Democrats should be voted for. Can’t get votes for them by criticizing them . Republicans are by far the main problem. Yes two blue dogs are the margin of difference, but that’s not Biden’s fault ! From the news you’d think it’s Biden’s fault. Plus Biden has 3 more years when he can get more . What’s going on is a reason to vote in more Democrats . The media is a distorting drama Queen .

Republicans : Let them eat cake

Why are the Senate Republicans willing to shutdown the US government and crash the economy ? Why don’t they care about the economy crashing or continuously crushing the 99 % ? Why do Republicans always say let them eat cake and give more money to the rich ? Republicans represent monopoly capital . The biggest capitalists make the most killings in recessions when failing companies can be bought on the cheap. One capitalist always kills many capitalists . So, yes they want recession for their vulture capitalist masters. Continuously , in recessions and economic booms , Monopoly capitalWall Street, the 1% , the Upper Class is always waging class warfare against the 99% , the “Middle” - “Lower “ Class THROUGH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Make the GOP a permanent minority party on

https://take10charles.blogspot.com/2014/08/abolish-economics-and-republican-party.html?fbclid=IwAR19LA-coxEgp6rUn5BuOt-TJXqywTTz_uidDiW5F-mg-_tG4A-HpWvCO8Y&m=1

Campaign for Democratic votes against Trumpy and all Republicans ; don’t just vote Democratic; get other people to vote Democratic; campaign, canvass , phone bank , letters to the editor. That’s the only way to beat Republicans @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Raymond : ", I don't think anybody is going to abolish anything right now. I know I can't see past the reinstatement of the Voting Rights Act, these two infrastructure bills and the debt ceiling right now. Then there's some shit that definitely needs abolishing after that.... 😏 Charles :That’s right .,It’s a protracted struggle Raymond . California has substantially accomplished relegating the GOP to permanent minority status. I very much agree the immediate struggle is what you say. What is your longer term strategy ? No progress without struggle; the struggle continues; more victories, as in 2018 and 2020 , are certain ; freedom is a constant struggle, especially electoral class struggle; campaign for Democratic votes everyday some kinda way; abolish the Republican Party as We , the Majority know it.

Total subjectivity is not good for yourself

Total subjectivity is not good for yourself . Continuous connection to objective reality is an essential characteristic of subjective reality.

We must abolish the GOP

Make the GOP a permanent mimority party . Why are the Senate Republicans willing to shutdown the US government and crash the economy ? Why don’t they care about the economy crashing or continuously crushing the 99 % ? Why do Republicans always say let them eat cake and give more money to the rich ? Republicans represent monopoly capital . The biggest capitalists make the most killings in recessions when failing companies can be bought on the cheap. One capitalist always kills many capitalists . So, yes they want recession for their vulture capitalist masters. Continuously , in recessions and economic booms , Monopoly capitalWall Street, the 1% , the Upper Class is always waging class warfare against the 99% , the “Middle” - “Lower “ Class THROUGH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Displacement ( linguistics)

wikipedia :"Displacement (linguistics) In linguistics, displacement is the capability of language to communicate about things that are not immediately present (spatially or temporally); i.e., things that are either not here or are not here now. In 1960, Charles F. Hockett proposed displacement as one of 13 design features of language that distinguish human language from animal communication systems (ACSs): Man is apparently almost unique in being able to talk about things that are remote in space or time (or both) from where the talking goes on. This feature—"displacement"—seems to be definitely lacking in the vocal signaling of man's closest relatives, though it does occur in bee-dancing.[1] In animal communication systems Edit Honeybees use the waggle dance to communicate the location of a patch of flowers suitable for foraging. The degree of displacement in this example remains limited when compared to human language. A bee can only communicate the location of the most recent food source it has visited. It cannot communicate an idea about a food source at a specific point in the past, nor can it speculate about food sources in the future.[2] In addition, displacement in the waggle dance is restricted by the language's lack of creativity and productivity. The bees can express direction and distance, but it has been experimentally determined that they lack a sign for "above". It is also doubtful that bees can communicate about non-existent nectar for the purpose of deception.[3] Consequently, in honeybee communication, the potential for displacement is limited, but it is there insofar as they have the ability to communicate about something not currently present (i.e., something that is spatially removed). Ants have been observed sending out scouts to patrol for food items, and coming back for other workers if the food found is too large to bring to the nest by the finder alone; for example, a dead caterpillar that is too heavy. This again would involve displacement by communicating outside of the here and now. Recruitment has also been observed by the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda for the purpose of communicating new food sources, emigration to new sites, and for defense against intruders. Researchers have described no less than five distinct systems to fulfill these functions in this species.[4] The ants communicate using a system composed of olfactory or scent clues from several glands together with body movements. The animals will use antennation, body jerking, and mouth-opening, and will combine these clues with the application of the scent trails or scent release to pass on information regarding resources or intruders. Ravens (Corvus corax) have been observed to recruit other ravens to large feeding sites, such as to the carcass of an animal. However, their motivation for recruiting appears less obvious, and the specifics of their communication system are more elusive. Still, it has been documented that ravens must have such a system, as their patterns of gathering at sites clearly indicate that they must have been informed of the presence of the resource.[5][6] It is believed that non-mated ravens call in a group of other non-mated birds to be able to feed and not get chased away by mated territorial pairs of established ravens. Importance in evolution of language Edit The need to convey information using displacement has been suspected to have been the evolutionary pressure leading to language development in humans, as outlined by Derek Bickerton in Adam's Tongue.[7] The pressure of such need is present in species with a foraging strategy that presents the challenge of directing members of its group to a food source too large to be utilized singly or in small numbers, requiring recruitment of assistance. It's only when you fully appreciate what displacement means, how the absence of displacement is not just a casual feature of ACSs but a crucial defining feature of pre-human minds, that you can start getting the complete picture. — Bickerton, page 217 The unique environmental need selecting for a communication system capable for displacement in humans or their direct ancestors is not identified, but hypotheses include Bickerton's theory of small groups finding large herbivore carcasses, and needing the assistance from other small groups of humans to defend against other dangerous scavengers (large cats, hyenas) competing for the same source of food. Language development most certainly did not stop there—since otherwise bees or ants would have comparable communication systems to humans—but this is where it is hypothesized to have begun, giving human ancestors the ability to take communication out of the here and now. See also Edit Bee learning and communication Corvus corax – ravens and their extraordinary intelligence Design features of language Homo erectus – possible use of language in early humans Weaver ant social structure References Edit ^ Hockett, Charles F., "The origin of speech", Scientific American, 203: 88–96, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0960-88, archived from the original on 26 April 2010, retrieved 19 February 2011 ^ Yule, George (2010), The Study of Language (4th ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–12, ISBN 978-0-521-76527-5 ^ Meyer, Paul Georg (2005), Synchronic English Linguistics: An Introduction (3rd ed.), Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, p. 265, ISBN 3-8233-6191-0 ^ Holldobler, Bert and Wilson, Edward O. 1977. The Multiple Recruitment Systems of the African Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda (Latreille) (Hymenopetera: Formicidae) Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology: 3,19-60 (1978) ^ Heinrich, B. Winter foraging at carcasses by three sympatric corvids, with emphasis on recruitment by the raven, Corvus corax. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology:3, 141-156 (1998) ^ Heinrich, B and Marzluff, J.M. Do common ravens yell because they want to attract others? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology: 28, 13-21 (1991) ^ Bickerton, Derek (2009). Adam's Tongue. Hill and Wang. ISBN 978-0-8090-2281-6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_(linguistics) .

Strike by the unorganized

There’s a big class struggle going on out of the pandemic recession . It’s actually a spontaneous strike by unorganized individuals.

Charles Brown