Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] What's wrong with eugenics?
It should be noted that before the actions of the Third Reich had discredited eugenics. It was something that was widely supported by intellectuals across the board from far right to far left, and all points in between. Bertrand Russell and G.B. Shaw were noted supporters of eugenics. It also had the support of many Marxists including for instance, Trotsky. Thus Trotsky in his article, If America should go Communist (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1934/08/ame.htm) wrote the following concerning eugenics - note the distinction that he drew between the kind of eugenics that he supported and the kind that the Nazis supported: While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europes Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men the first worthy of the name of Man. Jim F. -- Original Message -- From: waistli...@aol.com To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] What's wrong with eugenics? Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:43:18 EDT In a message dated 8/20/2009 6:36:34 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, shm...@pipeline.com writes: Are you confused by the capitalization-to-start-sentences style rule I (unfortunately) adhered to? eugenics (nonrestrictive noun) is not Eugenics (restrictive noun). The former's meaning is determined by the meaning of the words comprising it: *eu* (good) plus *genics* (pertaining to heredity): its cognates are such words as euphoria and generation. The latter, as indicated by the upper-case E, has a meaning restricted to the definition intended by the speaker, and there are indefinitely many such definitions. Reply Well . . . yes, I am utterly confused. By eugenics what is meant is something totally different from what one finds when they access the word on line. As I understand things in my confusion, what is meant is the striving for good health through the selection of positive - (life affirming hereditary traits that strengthen the human organism and increases longevity) more compatible genetic material in a mate. If this approximate your meaning then I suggest Arnold Ehret who describes how this process spontaneous process operates amongst human beings. Then he describes what in the environment blunts this spontaneous process and how to detoxify the human from the legacy of property and industrial society. * eugenics is universal among mammals and birds and most other terrestrial animals. It is the key factor making evolution a conscious, not a random process. Darwin called it sexual selection. communism is the *beginning* of history because only in a communist society because only then will eugenics become a social goal, the evolution of our species the object of a *fully* conscious process. Reply I do agree that only in a communist society - after the human has been detoxified of the muck of property, and roughly seven generation have had an opportunity to close the metabolic breach, the pursuit of good health becomes a full societal goal. Until then finding the optimal mate is hit and miss, due to the misfiring and dysfunction of the senses. Human's possess the innate ability to smell ones optimal mate. However, property has distorted our nose and makes it a liar. Not for nothing have men wrote poetry to the beauty of hair, which under optimal conditions operate as extensions of our sexual organs. The smell of hair is a powerful thing to a healthy clear human body. Capital created fragrance to cover up and replace natural smell. To this day we sing of the touch of your hand because when one touches the optimal mate the electrical charge of the cells are excited. Much of these sense perceptions have been lost and/or blunted by property, capital and wrong consumption. Do read Ehret. There are some interesting proposition put forth by Zechariah Sitchin in his description of the genetic manipulation of man and the optimal hereditary factors need to produced the healthiest offspring's. I am interested in any material suggested on this topic, provided it steers clear of racial theory and natural selection based on ideological concepts of class and/or class as a social index. WL. Park City Express Direct Private Transportation to Park City Resort and Deer Valley http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=OdMA2VXf9oldyBiUNY3sOQAAJ1AP8ttsZd_TbiVxkZxsC3mBAAUAAHsUbj47uU1E6-ilZBkve7YNejP3AA== ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] What's wrong with eugenics?
On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:43 PM, waistli...@aol.com wrote: As I understand things in my confusion, what is meant is the striving for good health through the selection of positive - (life affirming hereditary traits that strengthen the human organism and increases longevity) more compatible genetic material in a mate. * eugenics is universal among mammals and birds and most other terrestrial animals. It is the key factor making evolution a conscious, not a random process. Darwin called it sexual selection. communism is the *beginning* of history because only in a communist society because only then will eugenics become a social goal, the evolution of our species the object of a *fully* conscious process. Reply I do agree that only in a communist society - after the human has been detoxified of the muck of property, and roughly seven generation have had an opportunity to close the metabolic breach, the pursuit of [eugenic] health becomes a full societal goal. Until then finding the optimal mate is hit and miss, due to the misfiring and dysfunction of the senses We have developed beyond mere natural eugenics. Genetic science already allows screening of any fetus for serious hereditary defects (remember how Palin trumpeted her disgenic choice to carry a defective fetus to term?) and women can and (most) do act eugenically to abort those fetuses. *In vitro* fertilization allows even more direct choice of which (existing) hereditary characteristics to include in the makeup of one's offspring. And beyond that, it is only the stupid sexist/speciesist ideology of decaying capitalism that outlaws direct genetic intervention (of the sort already practiced on a commercial scale for exploitable species of plants and animals) permitting human mothers to create the best and even absolutely new genetic possibilities for their offspring. So seven generations will not be needed before the people of a communist society will eagerly practice eugenics on a grand scale-- they will start just as soon as genetic technology is as freely available to all as it is *now* to a privileged few. And beyond that is the incorporation (already on the scientific drawing boards) of cybernetic nanotechnologies into the human (and other animal) physical and mental organisms. The scientific *means* for conscious direction of evolution, on a planetary scale, are already, or imminently, at hand. And our species will adopt them--in the remote possibility that capitalism has not wiped it out before then. Shane Mage This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures. Herakleitos of Ephesos ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] What's wrong with eugenics? (a long reply . . .sorry)
We have developed beyond mere natural eugenics. Genetic science already allows screening of any fetus for serious hereditary defects (remember how Palin trumpeted her disgenic choice to carry a defective fetus to term?) and women can and (most) do act eugenically to abort those fetuses. *In vitro* fertilization allows even more direct choice of which (existing) hereditary characteristics to include in the makeup of one's offspring. And beyond that, it is only the stupid sexist/speciesist ideology of decaying capitalism that outlaws direct genetic intervention (of the sort already practiced on a commercial scale for exploitable species of plants and animals) permitting human mothers to create the best and even absolutely new genetic possibilities for their offspring. Reply Whether one elects to abort a defective fetus is not the issue. Nor was the issue posed as genetic intervention based on the positive results of the bio-genetic revolution. The sovereign rights of the individual is not at all the question of the eugenics movement historically and present. Nor is in vitro (outside the organism) fertilization a desire for 99.9% of humanity. I do not oppose such options for the 0.1% but there is a material reason why those who cannot have babies should not. Something is wrong with one of the organisms. Moreover, because they cannot they should not. Artificial pregnancy is an option for such people who should not give birth in the first place. More, often than not all one has to do is carefully detoxify their body. Most people prefer the old fashion penis-vagina routine. Why debate on the basis of 0.1% of humanity? The emerging science of bio-genetics is not eugenics or the meaning of the historic eugenics movement. Eugenics is the striving to create better people through destroying the surplus population created by capital and those deemed unfit by the stool pigeons of the bourgeoisie. What is wrong with eugenics, (the title of this thread), is that it is a totally bourgeois concept of human development detached from property, class and the interactions within the mode of production. Eugenics is 100% bourgeois ideology. The eugenics movement of the past century has a recorded history that cannot be avoided or swept under the ideological carpet or misrepresented by word trickery. As a social movement eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned,[3] though current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current utilitarian and social darwinistic theories[4]. At its pre-war zenith, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.[5] Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits.[6] Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[7] The interventions advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups ——such as the Roma and Jews——as degenerate or unfit; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[8] The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights. The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[9] _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) In my streams of replies and confusion, an attempt was made - (evidently unsuccessful), to speak of the eugenics movement before and after the advent of the biogenetic revolution. Sir Francis Galton is the architect of modern eugenics or eugenic in the epoch of the bourgeois mode of production. (1) Specifically, the scientific quest for better people, rather than healthy people, begins in 1865. Arnold Ehret represents a material juncture in the quest for better human health. Ehret’s concept is not better people but
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] What's wrong with eugenics?
Comment Trotsky’s letter is 75 years old. In my way of thinking 75 years is two generation. Here is the problem for me. I cannot conceive and think things out from the standpoint of a person Trotsky’s age in 1934. I reread the letter in its entirety. Moreover, everything in it seems horrible old because two generations have passed. This letter may have made sense in 1934 - for many, but not today in regards to eugenics or a Soviet America. History has run far beyond both conceptions of the social process. . There is no good that can comes from discussing eugenics. Shane defines matters as thus: Eugenics means good heredity. Disgenics means bad heredity. The moment one ask the simple question, what is heredity, a huge partisan debate unfolds because that is no agreement to the meaning of heredity other than an abstract passing on of good traits (genes)? Are blue eyes a good trait? Is pale skin a good trait? Actually, Arnold Ehret unravels these questions. No good can come from a concept of passing on good and bad traits (genes).and the use of genetic manipulation to create “better human beings.” The issue is optimum health. The issue of communist man is posed as the restoration of pre-private property man at a qualitative higher level of development of the productive forces. A new breed of man means a specific thing for me in August 2009: negati on of the man as he existed under the jackboot of 40 centuries of private property. Man is metabolic. A new breed of man must by definition be bound up with something fundamental to the metabolic unity of man and maintaining this unity. What disrupts this metabolic unity is 40 centuries of wrong consumption. Every single person in American society sense the issue and know in their heart we are oppressed and beat down under the bourgeois mode of food reproduction. The problem is that we cannot yet overthrow this system of reproduction. 99% of Americans die a horrible death from obesity, wrong food and chemical concoctions of the mad-hatter bourgeoisie. And everyone know this and sense the magnitude of the issue. . Why retreat into concepts of a new breed of man based on the science and ideology of the middle stage of the industrial revolution? Today, in real time the spontaneous movement for healthy human beings is against the modern food industry and the bourgeois mode of food production; against medical quackery and Big Pharma. This spontaneous path is actual the right path forward. Gene manipulation is a tool to be used in extreme instances. Nothing good can come of the eugenics movement. All one has to do is examine its modality. It has none. It’s purpose is destruction of the surplus population pure and simple. That is took so long to discredit the eugenics movement is testimony to the low level of consciousness of revolutionaries. Then again, I had to face an almost fatal accident to seriously study health and healing. WL. It should be noted that before the actions of the Third Reich had discredited eugenics. It was something that was widely supported by intellectuals across the board from far right to far left, and all points in between. Bertrand Russell and G.B. Shaw were noted supporters of eugenics. It also had the support of many Marxists including for instance, Trotsky. Thus Trotsky in his article, If America should go Communist concerning eugenics - note the distinction that he drew between the kind of eugenics that he supported and the kind that the Nazis supported: While the romantic numskulls of Nazi Germany are dreaming of restoring the old race of Europe’s Dark Forest to its original purity, or rather its original filth, you Americans, after taking a firm grip on your economic machinery and your culture, will apply genuine scientific methods to the problem of eugenics. Within a century, out of your melting pot of races there will come a new breed of men – the first worthy of the name of Man. Jim F. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
