Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Eugenics

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 3448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 15:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Oct 2012, 14:22
Eugenics is incompatible with genuine socialism because it gives some external arbiter who places himself above society the power to regiment the working class into breeding programmes like cattle for their own purposes.

The socialist policy should be for genetic screening to be made universally available free of cost at the point of use (with some restrictions on what genetic traits can be selected for: gender, etc.).

Not for capitalists and bureaucrats to be allowed to take sovereignty over our reproductive systems.
The moment one accepts the notion of 'totalitarianism', one is firmly locked within the liberal-democratic horizon. - Slavoj Žižek
Soviet cogitations: 9
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Oct 2012, 04:30
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 05 Nov 2012, 01:52
Is this common knowledge? Paraphrasing from original sources:

In America however many corporations were as powerful, influential and had plenty of money to persuade the political leadership to pass laws and legislation that resembled Nazi holocaust eugenics. Some of the corporations like the Ford Company and IBM, some institutes such as Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, Carnegie Institute, Rockefeller, and associations or societies such the American Breeders Association (Now called the American Genetic Association), American Eugenics Society, American Medical Association, American Medical Society, American Ophthalmological Society, American Philosophical Society, American Public Health Association, American Social Hygiene Association, American Society of Human Genetics, Eugenics Research Association, Anglo-Saxon Clubs, Human Betterment League, Medical Information Bureau, Kaiser Wilhelm Society and many others too.

Maybe IBM had some influence in SE? But can't find and sources that can verify if it is true and valid.

Some random notes:

There is a list 65 classifications of people that American eugenics targeted, including various types who immigrated to America of Brits, Slavic, Italian and other non-German and non-Nordic types.

Sometime later John Edger Hoover attempted to finish it, through socialistic, communistic, anarchistic, witch hunts, and various other profiling techniques (which are very similar to the early American eugenics categories and techniques of organizing), but he failed. Due to Watergate and all that and such and the like.

American criminologists and social scientists believed that the criminal type had beady eyes and certain phrenological shapes.

In America, Genetic Anti Discrimination Bill which would prohibit genetic testing in group insurance and employment, has been percolating in Congress in various forms for years.

Some more random notes:

Eugenics and breeding ideology goes as far back as the Old Testament when Jacob bred his and Laban's flock,as spotted and streaked goats to create spotted and streaked offspring (Matthew 7: 18-19). Jesus said in (Genesis 30: 38-42) "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."

Darwin was writing about the natural world distinct from man. Not social relations between humans.

Eugenics(outdated, old pseudoscience) starts from the premise or question: person x has physical characteristic y, therefore person x is unfit, undesirable, weak, imbecile, idiot, moron, or stupid, low IQ, etc, etc., this person x must be eliminated or stopped from reproducing, marrying. Genetics starts from the premise or question: Is there a gene that is causing disease xy, how can it be fixed? How can we cure or fix this person rather than putting this person in a gas chamber or some other Nazi Scientist/Doctor experiment that ultimately leads to death.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 10 Nov 2012, 18:28
How do you judge who is better than others? It is rather subjective standard to be honest.

Humans cannot control nature, and it is rather ridiculous to call yourself a Marxist and contradict materialism by saying this...

There are billions of genes, and everyone is "flawed" in various ways. It is absolutely impossible to control how those genes couple, and, in the long run, you'll be doing more damage than good.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 10 Nov 2012, 18:44
Quote:
Humans cannot control nature, and it is rather ridiculous to call yourself a Marxist and contradict materialism by saying this...

Changing nature does not contradict materialism, on the contrary.
The whole human history is a history of changing the nature according to out own needs.

To paraphrize Engels, it was labor that changed an ape into a human.

Did this contradict materialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan ... _of_Nature
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 11 Nov 2012, 21:21
Loz wrote:
Changing nature does not contradict materialism, on the contrary.
The whole human history is a history of changing the nature according to out own needs.

To paraphrize Engels, it was labor that changed an ape into a human.

Did this contradict materialism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan ... _of_Nature

"Changing nature" is idealistic. It is thus incompatible with materialism. The physical realm is not something that can be trifled with, and a few idealistic projects don't exactly disprove that.

Now as we know, nature is relative to conditions. Humans are thus part of nature, and not an abstraction of it. "Consciousness" is an abstraction of the physical realm, of course, but that's because the mind, and all its functions, are a product of evolutionary matter- since it was found that humans would be best equipped to deal with the environment if they had an agent that allowed them to be creative.

And human history is the history of the class struggle, where the ruling classes set a thesis from which to lead(that was meant to interpret material conditions into social conditions- where from human consciousness is rooted) while the opposing class would introduce antitheses from which to replace(and they'd be accepted if they addressed material conditions better than the previous thesis).
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 11 Nov 2012, 21:39
Quote:
"Changing nature" is idealistic.

Yeah? Why?

Quote:
The physical realm is not something that can be trifled with

Yes it is, that's the whole point of progress.
Quote:

Consciousness" is an abstraction of the physical realm

Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it... . The world does not satisfy man and man decides to change it by his activity. Lenin

GSE:

The foundation for man’s relationship to the real world is goal-directed activity. The fundamental, vital meaning of consciousness and the historical necessity for its emergence consist in ensuring goal-directed activity aimed at transforming the world and subordinating it to the interests of man and society. Consciousness gives man the possibility of accurately reflecting what exists, foreseeing the future, and molding the world, based on his predictions and practical activity.
...

Marxism regards consciousness as a function of the brain, as the reflection of the objective world, and as a necessary aspect of the practical, material activity of man. According to dialectical materialism, consciousness emerges, functions, and develops out of the real interaction of man with the world, on the basis of sensual-objective activity and sociohistorical practice. Consciousness, the content of which reflects the objective world, is determined by natural and social reality. Objects, their properties, and their relationships exist in the consciousness ideally, as images. The ideal is the product of the activity of the brain, the subjective image of the objective world.
Soviet cogitations: 236
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2012, 03:04
Ideology: None
Pioneer
Post 15 Nov 2012, 23:37
Loz wrote:
Yeah? Why?

Because materialists believe in an eternal never ending fluctuation that is nature.


Quote:
Yes it is, that's the whole point of progress.

"Progress" is a subjective term. Society moves in certain directions not because of a vague concept like "progressivism," rather because society has to do as such to continue its existence. "Progressive ideas" also have their origin from this very materialistic basis, and people cannot think outside of what the physical realm already offers them.


Quote:
Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates it... . The world does not satisfy man and man decides to change it by his activity. Lenin

I haven't necessarily disagreed with this. Human consciousness is a product of nature, and nature has bestowed upon it the capabilities to interpret nature. Human consciousness is thus bound side-by-side with nature, and cannot be outside of it. Lenin didn't necessarily say that man is independent of the material world, as you seem to claim, did he?

Quote:
The foundation for man’s relationship to the real world is goal-directed activity. The fundamental, vital meaning of consciousness and the historical necessity for its emergence consist in ensuring goal-directed activity aimed at transforming the world and subordinating it to the interests of man and society. Consciousness gives man the possibility of accurately reflecting what exists, foreseeing the future, and molding the world, based on his predictions and practical activity.

How exactly does this statement contradict what I posted above? Humans "change the world" as their conditions demand, not as their abstract and impractical hearts desire(as you suggest).
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.