In a message dated 7/11/2000 9:49:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> This paradigm is associated with the patriarchal society that is dominant
>  in the West. It was not always so. Before then agricultural societies were
>  more MOTHER centered-more egalitarian, more democratic and more peaceful.
>  Also they were more reliant on the psychological force of influence than
>  on the power of domineering institutions. This observation of history
>  points to the fact that the cultural factors cannot be omitted from the
>  analysis. Feminism is broadened into a wider matriarchal panorama.
>
>  Radical Marxists combine this attachment to the inner impulse with an
>  opposition to the organisation of production by the state. In
>  contradistinction to state owning socialists, they perceive liberation
>  from exploitation as the goal of the working class but it is a goal that
>  cannot be reached by a new directing class substituting itself for the
>  bourgeoisie.
>
>
Agricultural societies came into existence a mere 6-9000 years ago, before
that
we can only assume that all humans were nomadic.  Whether the nomadic tribes
were exogamous or endogamous we cannot but interpolate, however, whether all
cultures, as groups of tribes, were matriarchal cannot be definitely
determined.
whether a culture is matriarchal or patriarchal does not determine the
process of mate selection upon which parents are selected upon which
identities are secured from the identification processes of the family-group.
 Unless Chomsky can determine how mate selection processes 'should' occur,
independent of how they may have occured, the psychological development of
humans will not change since corresponding to the economic determination of
identity by the bureaucratic 'state'
capitalistic apparatus is the identification process within the
family-culture. To the extent that familial and institutional influences
(those not constricted totally by the state economic nexus) have not been
completely eroded by the ever-expanding technological colonization of the
entertainment and electronical media, the necessary values for creating
motivations and social contexts for mate selection
need to be enumerated and justified.  How this argument which lambasts the
outer-driven man but then appeals only to changing the external stimulations,
the economic mechanisms, can work is beyond all sense.  But, then, to
simultaneously claim that the inner impulses of the inner-directed man have
been completed dessicated is to presume that the electronic media are not
riding high upon the shame- and guilt-basis of the modern personality.  The
mere observation of extensive law enforcement coupled to an extreme minority
ruling class-majority working class
ratio should clue everyone in to the fact that we are simultaneouly being hit
with and hitting each other with a two-fisted brand of 'shame on you' and
'I'll tell your father' for the least expression of instinctual gratification
that is outside the rules of exchange politics in economics or kinship.
Unless we address the reality of the inner driven man's excesses of sendings,
and the outer driven man's excesses of conformity and
obedience, albeit to a culture of raw competitive impulses, the hope for
democracy and participation will turn into despair.  First, we must solve the
choice issue in mate selection, otherwise we are no further than the
enunciations of the earliest renaissance.

Fred Welfare