|
The main people that I see being
overpopulated on the WSN list are "Straw People" (formerly known as
"Straw Men", a figure of American-English speech that refers to
pretending to defeat an opponent's argument by defeating an argument that the
opponent never put forward.)
==================================================================================
Richard Hutchinson posted this:
"Mary, Mine & List-
Obviously population control should be voluntary, both on ethical grounds, and because it will be more effective. But I want to challenge what I see as faulty logic -- just because population control is being pushed by evil forces, it does not follow that unrestricted population growth is good! It seems an obvious irony to me that some on the left apparently side with the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church and other well-known progressive forces on this issue. Now I can see the emotions kicking in and overriding logic. Be very clear, I'm not saying you share their ideology, but you wind up advocating the same dangerous position -- unlimited population growth. After all, the only problem is capitalism, not population. (It would be refreshing if you could make the same distinction that I'm making between advocating a position and the ideology behind it.)" ======================================================
Now, THAT'S what I call overpopulation of "Straw People". Nobody
on the list, not Andy Austin, not Steve Rosenthal, not Mine Doryan, not Jim
Blaut, not Paul Gomberg, not Colin Cavell, not me, nor anyone else that I've
read on WSN has taken the position of advocating "unlimited population
growth". The common thread that seems to tie together these posts is an
utter distrust of the capitalist class to determine whether or not there are too
many working class people. I'm sure all the above writers would strongly agree
that coerced pregnancy is similarly a tactic by capitalist elites to control the
labor market by oppressing the working class, and in particular, women.
Saying that population control "should be voluntary" evades the
question of "What is voluntary under capitalism?" Marx was not the
only person to understand that the whiplash of hunger can be just as coercive
against the working class as the rifle. Governmental policies to
"encourage" population control in the context of poverty, hunger, and
disease, could hardly be called "voluntary."
As a separate point, Richard Hutchinson's comment asking his opponents to
make: "the same distinction that I'm making between advocating a position
and the ideology behind it" seems a little odd after accusing his opponents
of having the same "dangerous position" as the Catholic Church and the
Mormon Church. Nobody accused Richard Hutchinson of being a Nazi, a fascist, or
even a stooge for those racists who want to limit the number of non-European
people in the world, but some did point out that his ideology did have the
potential to support the "same dangerous position" as those groups. He
didn't like that accusation, but how is his comment about having the same
"dangerous position" as the Catholic Church any different?
In my opinion, BOTH types of opinions are legitimate TYPES of arguments. If
someone's position, however well-intentioned, strengthens the position of
anti-social, (anti-working class) forces, it is appropriate to point that out
and let the readers decide if the "trade-off" of this or that
compromise, including being seemingly allied with certain forces, is worth
it.
But it is inconsistent, at best, for Richard Hutchinson to condescendingly
ask his critics to not discuss "the ideology behind" a position when
he himself does the very same thing.
Alan Spector
|